Goldy

As expected, the Seattle Times has endorsed No on I-1033, as will most every other newspaper in the state.  But while it is a responsible editorial, and fairly well argued, I couldn’t help reading it with an involuntary roll of the eyes, for some of the common misconceptions the editors attempt to correct, happen to be ones they’ve worked damn hard to create.

The Times now argues that Washington is not a high tax state (in fact, we’re 35th by Tim Eyman’s own source), but this will strike many readers as quite contrary to the impression the Times itself has left over the past few years, whether arguing for estate tax repeal, or in favor of an all-cuts budget, or in support of Dino Rossi and other conservative Republicans. Even former state Republican Party Chair Chris Vance has acknowledged that King County’s budget woes are largely due to a structural revenue deficit, not out of control spending, a fact based reality the Times appears pained to grasp.

I-1033, unlike I-601, applies to counties and cities as well. In all of them, growth in property-tax revenue is limited to 1 percent plus taxes on new construction. Cities and counties are finding it a hard limit to live with. Any further limit on their tax collections should be up to the citizens in each jurisdiction.

Further limits? The existing 1 percent cap is an arbitrary and ridiculous limit that is already eroding the ability of local governments to provide basic services, and the Times is willing to even suggest the notion of further limits… and in an anti-1033 editorial no less?

There are two reasons why Eyman’s I-1033 still has a chance to pass. 1) Investment banker Michael Dunmire; without his money none of Eyman’s recent measures would have qualified for the ballot; and 2) Our state and local media have relentlessly created the impression in the minds of many voters that Washington is a high-tax state with out of control spending… and editorializing against Eyman’s initiative once every year or so, is not enough to change that impression.

My friend Stefan Sharkansky and I will be appearing together tomorrow afternoon at the NW Journalism Conference, in a panel discussion on blogging moderated by conference organizer Barry Mitzman, 3:30 PM, Pigott 201, Seattle University.  Huh. I didn’t know Stefan blogged?

The theme of this year’s conference is “The Future of News.” Registration is $50, but only $15 for students and the unemployed (which given the current state of “News,” probably covers most of the attendees).  There are several interesting sessions at the daylong conference I might attend, not to mention a lunch with Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen, if I weren’t otherwise engaged at my daughter’s soccer game. One must have priorities.

Yup, this is how Republicans congratulate our president:

“They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept.”
— Rush Limbaugh

“It’s not Republicans that are throwing their lot in with terrorists — it’s the White House.”
— Michael Goldfarb

“Before they break out the champagne at the White House, they may want to pause over the fact that Obama now shares this honor with Mohammed el-Baradei, Yasser Arafat, and flagrant liar Rigoberta Menchu Tum.”
— Mona Charon

“Now as he nears a critical decision on whether or not to provide the troops his commander in the theater is pressing for even as appeasers in his inner circle council appeasement of the Taliban, he is awarded the world’s most prestigious prize.”
— Hugh Hewitt

“I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it.”
— Erick Erickson

“After a number of years, the NFL renamed its Super Bowl trophy after its most fitting recipient — it’s now called the Vince Lombardi Trophy. I’d like to see the Nobel Foundation follow suit. If today’s headlines said, ‘Barack Obama Wins Yasser Arafat Prize,’ that would be perfect.”
— Andy McCarthy

And the DNC’s appropriate response?

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

Embarrassing indeed.

Well, he may have lost in his bid to win the 2016 Summer Olympics for his hometown of Chicago, but I guess his international standing has not totally eroded, as President Barack Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize nonetheless.

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” a honor that came less than nine months after he made United States history by becoming the country’s first African-American president.

The award, announced in Oslo by the Nobel Committee while much of official Washington — including the president — was still asleep, cited in particular the president’s efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said.

For Mr. Obama, one of the nation’s youngest presidents, the award is an extraordinary recognition that puts him in the company of world leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev, who won for helping to bring an end to the cold war, andNelson Mandela, who sought an end to apartheid.

Oh man that must tie the righties’ underwear up in knots. In fact…

But it is also a potential political liability at home; already, Republicans are criticizing the president, contending he won more for his “star power” than his actual achievements.

You know, actual achievements like 9/11, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, disastrous missionless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression and other highlights of the Bush administration.

In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor,George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said in its citation. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

The world still looks to the United States for leadership, moral and otherwise. Here’s hoping President Obama has the strength, ability and opportunity to deliver on today’s recognition.

In another few hours, NASA’s Centaur rocket will crash into the moon in a search for evidence of water. The following NASA promotional video has more:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI[/youtube]

Read the headline, teaser and five-sentence story accompanying it at the top of the Seattle Times’ home page this afternoon, and you could be excused for thinking that Sound Transit has suddenly found itself in some deep shit. In fact, you might even be downright angry at the implied notion that Sound Transit might have misled voters last fall, and will soon have to come back for even more money.

You’d be wrong, but it wouldn’t be your fault. Rather the blame lies squarely on one of the stupidest bits of reporting, editing and headline writing I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading in the Times… and considering it’s the Times, that’s a pretty high bar.

Sound Transit isn’t “forecasting a loss,” they’re forecasting revenues coming in at $3.1 billion below original projections over the next 15 years… which is about $1 billion lower than the previous revised forecast. That’s not a loss, as you can’t lose something you’ve never had. Indeed, Sound Transit couldn’t possibly show a loss this year or the next or over the next 15… it’s a government agency, not a business, and government agencies just don’t work that way; they can only spend the dollars they have!

Furthermore, despite the lower forecast, Sound Transit still believes it can deliver the services promised, and on time. How? Well, despite all the naysayers, their budgets have long been on the conservative side, with fairly deep built-in reserves. Due to the recession, these reserves don’t leave much wiggle room anymore, but that’s why they’re constantly redoing their revenue forecasts… so that they have time to react to changing circumstances and respond accordingly.

And, now that they know that revenues are coming in significantly lower than projected, they’ll adjust their design and engineering to reflect the new fiscal reality. That means new stations may become standardized and not quite so fancy. Meanwhile, expensive changes and alternatives, however politically expedient, are much less likely to be adopted. They’ll also be force to be more creative in looking for savings in operations. (UPDATE: Seattle Transit Blog has more.)

But they are not, as the Times irresponsibly implies, operating in the red, to the tune of $3.1 billion or any other number. That’s just plain wrong, stupid, and in my opinion, an inexcusable reach for a sensationalist headline that does nothing but misinform the public.

UPDATE:
The Seattle Times has changed the headline to the more accurate “Sound Transit to collect $3.1B less.” That may not be as sexy as the first headline, but it has the virtue of being based in fact.

That said, I’m still at a loss to explain how the Times editors could have possibly gone with the first headline without realizing the obvious false impression it would make on readers. I mean really, it couldn’t be interpreted any other way. Meanwhile, for those of you who would still prefer to spin this into a story of Sound Transit mismanagement or dishonesty, here’s a graph from today’s revised forecast that tells the whole story:

Of course, this is also the story behind the revenue woes at every agency at every level of government throughout the state and the nation. Those who blame budget woes solely on profligate spending while ignoring the revenue side of the equation, quite simply have their heads up the ass.

During remarks last year before the Washington Policy Center, a conservative think tank funded by wealthy, right-wing donors, King County Exec wannabe Susan Hutchison took a moment to plug their Policy Guide for Washington State, a collection of policy proposals for key areas of government.

“I’d like to put in a plug for a book that you have on your tables. It’s called the Policy Guide for Washington State and it’s published by the Washington Policy Center. Let me tell you about this book. I have read it cover to cover and it is one of the most extraordinary pieces of work about Washington State and the policies that make our government run. It hits on 10 different subjects from health care, education, transportation, tax policy and others. But let me tell you, folks… if you started this book tomorrow morning and read it through you would be smarter by dinnertime tomorrow night. This book makes you smart. So I highly recommend that you take it and that you read it.”

So… what exactly are these “smart” ideas that have Hutchison so excited?

On transportation…

Manipulating transportation policies to force a particular behavior coerces people into abandoning their individual liberties in favor of a socialistic benefit where supposedly a greater collective good is created.

[…] Reduce spending on costly, ineffective fixed-route mass transit. Policymakers should change spending priorities that heavily favor mass transit systems despite chronically low ridership. Riders of these expensive systems, like light rail and the Sounder Commuter Train, are being heavily subsidized by automobile commuters, yet research shows that fixed rail does nothing to reduce traffic congestion.

[…] The problem is that transportation spending is based on other agendas rather than congestion relief. As a result, the cost of bringing goods to market rises and consumers end up paying more for products.

Sound Transit’s East Link proposal is a good example. Reconfiguring the center lanes across Interstate 90 (I-90) for light rail, as agency officials propose, would not only fail to reduce traffic congestion, it would, according to the state Department of Transportation, worsen traffic congestion by 25 percent.

On the environment…

Proclamations about the risks from climate change have been revised again and again, always downward, and other information has been shown to be more about politics than science.

[…] Eliminate the mandated “green” building standards for public buildings…

On science…

Even when the science is accurate, it does not indicate that the problem ought to be addressed or that particular policies should be followed.

On I-1033…

Adopt a constitutional amendment to limit the growth of spending to inflation and population growth.

[…]

Colorado’s spending limit, in contrast, was enacted as part of the constitution and has proved much more effective at protecting citizens from aggressive state spending. Passed by the people in 1992, Colorado’s Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) limits the amount of tax revenue the state can keep each year to the sum of inflation plus population growth.

That’s right, in enthusiastically embracing Washington Policy Center’s recommendations (and in giving them over $100,000 from the foundation she ran), Hutchison was for I-1033 before she was against it, only worse, as the Policy Guide calls for the population-plus-inflation limit to be cemented in the state constitution, just like Colorado’s disastrous TABOR measure.

Hutchison can talk all she wants about being a moderate nonpartisan, but these are the policies she’s endorsed, these are the policies she’s helped fund, and these are the policies we must assume she’d pursue. If Hutchison wins in November, right-wingers will hail it as a huge victory, because she is one of them.  But her only path to victory is to hide this fact from voters.

Tim Eyman is nothing if not repetitive, as evidenced by the four times in less than five minutes that he made the same exact argument: that there needs to be a balance between what government says it needs and what taxpayers are able to afford.

Truth is, I can’t argue with that sentiment; I just can’t see how Timmy can use it in defense of I-1033, an initiative that would put even further limits on revenue growth, at a time Washington’s state and local taxes have been steadily falling as a percentage of personal income, and for at least a decade and a half. I mean, isn’t that the best measure of affordability?

And I’m not just pulling my figures out of my ass; I’m pulling it out of Tim’s ass, using the same statistics he uses, as compiled by the conservative Tax Foundation. Indeed, according to the Tax Foundation, Washington’s state and local taxes have fallen from 10.4% in 1994, when we ranked 17th nationwide, to 8.9% in 2008, and a ranking of 35th.

So if Tim really believes, as he repeatedly states, that the issue is whether taxpayers can afford the government we’re getting, I’m not sure exactly what problem I-1033 is intended to solve? He can rant all he wants about high taxes and out of control government growth, but the statistics — his own statistics — just don’t back him up.

Tim Eyman accuses I-1033 opponents of spinning scare-stories around the initiative’s potential impact, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the measure would unravel funding for state services and infrastructure when we only need look to Colorado. There a similar TABOR initiative pegged revenues to population-plus-inflation back in 1992, and the results have been devastating.

Joining Washington state educators at yesterday’s No on I-1033 press conference (you know, the one that Timmy so rudely crashed) was Colorado Education Association President Beverly Ingle, who explained how TABOR has eroded education funding, both at the K-12 and state university level. And, as I explained yesterday, as state education funding shrinks, so will local funding, despite Eyman’s uninformed and insincere assurances.

This isn’t rocket science. I-1033 will shrink the size of state and local government, and quite dramatically. That’s Tim’s goal. And by shrinking government I mean it will reduce the quality and breadth of government services, and defer crucial infrastructure investments.

So, if what you think we need to do is spend less money on education, I-1033 is for you. Because that’s exactly its intended result.

There’s a political compromise brewing in the US Senate over several conservative Democratic senators’ opposition to the a public option, a possible “option” clause that would allow states like Nebraska or North Dakota to opt out of the national public option… I mean, if they really want to. And as always, McJoan at Daily Kos gets to the heart of the issue:

In terms of national policy, is this necessarily a good idea? Probably not, when you’ve got crazy secessionists like Rick Perry in governorships. The thought of all those Texans not having access to care is a problem. On the other hand, how many governors ended up sending back those stimulus checks? How many governors, state legislators, or even Senators of Nebraska or North Dakota or Arkansas are going to be willing to stand in front of their constituents and tell them that the rest of the country has access to a government option for their healthcare. Have at it, Ben Nelson.

Yeah, probably not a great policy idea, but if that’s what it takes to get a real public option passed for the rest of us, I agree with Joan:  have at it, Ben Nelson.

Via TPM:

Two men were arrested when police found a pipe bomb, two shotguns, bomb-making materials, ammunition, a can of propane and SWAT costumes in their car Tuesday night in New Haven, Conn.

So far the police don’t have a clear sense of what the pair were planning to do, New Haven Police spokesman Officer Joe Avery told TPM.

Nope… no idea at all of what the pair were planning to do.

So let’s be clear. Brown-skinned guys with backpacks and cell phones… obvious terrorist bombing plot. White-skinned guys with actual bomb… um… gee… who the hell knows?

I’ll get to the real video later, you know the stuff with teachers talking about the real life impact of the budget cuts that would be coming under Initiative 1033, but first I thought I’d just post this clip showing what a real life asshole Tim Eyman can be.

Understand that Tim shows up, uninvited, at somebody else’s press conference, and yet despite his trespassing, is courteously allowed to stay and talk to the press. Because, you know, that’s just the way our side is… we welcome a public debate, because we’re confident we’ll win it.

But when I attempt to ask him a serious question, he won’t even look me in the eyes, let alone give me the courtesy of a response, instead dismissing me as “not the media.”

“This is a press conference,” Tim emphasizes in snubbing me.  Yeah… a press conference at which I was personally invited, and he was not. He also twice belittles the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly, perhaps the senior member of our state’s political press corps, saying he’s only “kinda sorta still the media.”

I mean, really… who the hell is Tim to decide who is and who is not the media?

The truth is, Tim won’t answer my questions because he knows that he can’t, for in repeatedly claiming that local school districts can simply go to voters to raise their local levies to make up for lost state revenues, he’s both lying to voters, and showing his own totally lack of understanding of how his own initiative works.

As I attempted to explain to Tim, there is a statutory lid on the amount of revenue districts can raise from local levies — 24% of combined state and federal funding for most districts, and grandfathered in as high as 33% for a handful of districts like Seattle, Bellevue and Mercer Island. And since many districts are already at or near their lid, if state funding goes down (and it absolutely will in real dollars should I-1033 pass), so would the amount of money districts would be allowed to raise via local levies.

This is a fact. And it’s simple math… math Eyman is either unwilling or unable to do. So any “real” journalist who allows Eyman to repeat his claim that districts can just go to voters for more money, is allowing Eyman to repeat a deliberate misstatement of act. (You know… a lie.)

Of course, the legislature could always lift the lid, and surely voters in wealthy districts could be persuaded to raise significantly more revenue for their local schools than they currently receive. But this shift in funding from state to local would only exacerbate the existing inequities between school districts, disadvantaging the children in the poorer and more rural areas that ironically will vote for I-1033 in the largest numbers.

But then, isn’t that the norm for Eyman initiatives: always hurting most those Tim claims he’s trying to help.

UPDATE:
Will speculates on Tim’s refusal to even make eye contact with me: “Perhaps he’s afraid he’ll fall in love? Either that, or he’s afraid he’ll turn to stone?”

A teacher from Colorado joined local teachers at press conference this morning to explain how Initiative 1033 would harm education in Washington state, and guess who showed up to crash the party?

I’m editing video now of some of the highlights of the press conference, plus some very rude treatment of me and Joel Connelly when we attempted to ask Tim Eyman serious questions. I mean, really… what a horse’s ass.

Long time political observers will notice a curious twist to the No on I-1033 campaign; for the first time ever, a campaign is overtly branding a Tim Eyman initiative as an actual “Tim Eyman initiative.”

Why? Well, I talked to folks from the campaign and they say that their research is absolutely conclusive. Voters don’t like him, voters don’t trust him, and they’re much less likely to vote for an initiative if they know it is sponsored by Tim Eyman.

Understandably, I take some pleasure in that, for while Tim deserves most of the credit for his negative rebranding, it is fair for me to claim to have played a not insubstantial part. At the time of my horse’s ass initiative, Tim was still widely referred to in the press as “initiative guru” or “initiative kingpin” Tim Eyman… adjectives I worked hard to undermine. Nowadays he’s almost always identified as a “professional initiative sponsor,” reinforcing the truthful perception that he’s mostly in this for the money.

So now that the voting public no longer takes Tim seriously, it’s time for the press to follow suit. Yeah, I know he gives good quote, and a horse’s ass always makes for good headlines. But as a writer of public policy the man is entirely unserious, and let’s be honest, without the financial support of one man, Michael Dunmire, Tim would have ceased qualifying initiatives for the ballot years ago.