HorsesAss.Org

Goldy

I write stuff! Now read it:

Hey… didn’t you used to be Dino Rossi?

by — ,

Back in March of 2004, the Wall Street Journal profiled two rising “state-level stars“…

Barack Obama is a Third Culture Kid — born in Hawaii of a Kenyan father and white American mother, raised in Indonesia, educated in New York and Cambridge, Mass. Now he’s favored to win a Senate seat in Illinois.

Dino Rossi sells commercial real estate, work that blends seamlessly into the Chamber of Commerce brand of Republican politics. In a state with few Italians and Catholics, the son of a grade-school teacher and beautician doesn’t blend in altogether. Which is good for his hopes to become governor of Washington state.

Odds are you haven’t heard of Mr. Obama, a 42-year-old Democrat, or Mr. Rossi, a 44-year-old Republican, above the truculent din of the Kerry and Bush campaigns. But both genial politicians, breaking molds, are candidates that could make a mark on their states, and perhaps the nation.

Last night President Barack Obama delivered his first speech before a joint session of Congress.  And Dino Rossi…?  He’s busy preparing for a spring-roll eating contest.

Well I guess, in the WSJ’s defense, batting .500 ain’t too bad.

The minority response

by — ,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCgmc32guso[/youtube]

Yeah sure, I’m a cynic, but I’m guessing I wasn’t the only American watching Bobby Jindal stride up to the camera last night to instantly assume that the equally cynical Republican leadership cast the first-term Louisiana governor in that role, primarily based on the color of his skin.  Gives new meaning to the phrase the minority response.

The GOP is an overwhelmingly white party, and predominantly old, white male at that, and so their relentless efforts to present a diverse face by touting young governors like Jindal and Sarah Palin as party leaders just comes across as pathetic. No doubt Jindal and Palin bring more to the table than a little melanin or estrogen, but if the Republicans are really interested in rejuvenating and recasting themselves, instead of just putting their same-old, same-old rhetoric in the mouth of a younger, darker face, they’d do better for themselves and the nation by elevating the likes of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist… a silver-haired white man, sure, but at least one who appears willing and able to question party orthodoxy during these extraordinary times.

Republicans are understandably envious (and increasingly alarmed) at the Democrats’ growing success with minority voters, but it seems they have the cause-and-effect behind our nation’s political segregation exactly backwards.  Minorities don’t vote for Democrats because we have more minority leaders; Democrats have more minority leaders because we are a fundamentally more inclusive party that supports and promotes policies that better serve the needs of minority communities.  And Republicans just can’t slap a Jindal or a Michael Steele in front of a gaggle of rich, old, white men and magically bridge that gap.

Jindal may indeed be smart and wonky, and perhaps may yet earn his reputation as a rising star, but he is only 37-years-old, and his three years in Congress and one year as governor of one of the most endemically corrupt and mismanaged states in the union hardly recommends him as a national leader.  And judging by the early reviews, last night’s performance didn’t do much to enhance his stature:

National Public Radio’s Juan Williams said that Jindal’s presentation was “sing-songy” and that Jindal looked “childish” compared to Obama. “I think he had a really poor performance tonight, I’m sorry to say,” Williams said on Fox News Channel.

MSNBC’s political site was critical as well: “The Louisiana governor, a Rhodes scholar, is a serious guy who’s known for sometimes being too wonky and even somewhat humorless. Well, he tried too hard NOT to look wonky and humorless. But it didn’t work … his speech seemed to be too much of a brochure about himself rather than about his party and its ideas.”

And then there’s conservative commentator David Brooks’ scathing instant assessment on PBS’s The News Hour:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27UIt0RuMw[/youtube]

Ouch.

Still, I guess that’s okay; Jindal wouldn’t be the first young governor to flop in that role, so it’s hardly a career killer.  Indeed, if history is any guide, Jindal might someday have a promising career as Commerce Secretary.

Obama introduces Locke as Commerce pick

by — ,

obamalocke

President Barack Obama this morning officially introduced former WA Gov. Gary Locke as his third (and presumably final) pick for Commerce Secretary:

“I’m sure it’s not lost on anyone that we’ve tried this a couple of times,” Mr. Obama said while introducing Locke at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. “But I’m a big believer in keeping at something until you get it right. And Gary is the right man for this job.”

I don’t know anybody who doesn’t think this will be an easy confirmation, and that Locke is clearly qualified for the job.

The war on Christmas (trees)

by — ,

Who knew?

Also on Monday, the House passed a bill that would increase the amount of damages that landowners can collect for stolen Christmas trees.

Under present law, the state and private landowners can’t collect more than $3 per tree in a civil lawsuit if someone cuts, breaks or removes a Christmas tree from public or private land.

But when it comes to other kinds of timber or trees, landowners presently can collect three times the actual value of trees that are cut, damaged or removed. Someone also can be convicted of theft if he or she intentionally trespasses on public land and removes trees.

You mean current law provides an exemption for tree theft, as long as it was stolen to be used as a Christmas tree?  WTF?

It’s a politician’s prerogative to change their mind

by — ,

Over at Publicola, Josh says “it’s looking likelier that Seattle City Council Member Tim Burgess is going to run against Mayor Greg Nickels,” an assertion supported, I suppose, by Burgess’ official exploratory committee filing.

Huh.  Hard to believe, considering that in my personal experience, when a politician or his office says he is not a candidate (or is not being appointed to some plum position in the Obama administration), his word is as good as gold… and just a couple weeks ago on our podcast, Burgess insisted he most definitely was not running for mayor:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/timburgess.mp3]

Of course, that was February 10, whereas Burgess didn’t file for his exploratory committee until February 20th. I guess a lot can change in ten days.

Former Gov. Locke to Commerce

by — ,

That’s what the AP is reporting:

A senior administration official says that President Barack Obama’s likely third pick for Commerce secretary is former Washington Gov. Gary Locke.

Huh.  Locke isn’t exactly a lot of folks’ favorite governor, though apart from his conventional approach to trade issues it’s hard to argue that he’s a bad choice for Commerce.

Washington is one of our nation’s most export dependent states, consistently ranking fourth overall in total exports behind California, Texas and New York, and first in exports per capita.  And as our nation’s first Chinese-American governor Locke is uniquely positioned to bridge the cultural gap with one our most important trading partners.

I’d say this is a safe appointment for Obama, one that will generate little excitement and little controversy.  Locke is honest, workmanlike, and socially progressive (by national standards) if politically cautious, and while I’d prefer a Commerce Secretary who might at least challenge the current orthodoxy on trade, given his tenure in the governor’s mansion I wouldn’t expect much leadership from him on these issues one way or the other.

Unless he’s got some tax or nanny issue I’m unaware of, this should be an easy confirmation.

UPDATE:
A reliable source has confirmed that Locke received the call from President Obama at 1:30PM Pacific this afternoon.

State of denial

by — ,

biawsuccess

In their latest monthly newsletter, the BIAW touts their recent “political successes,” including, apparently, the alleged 2004 election of Dino Rossi.

What a bunch of poor losers.

Seattle Times prefers civil war over civil debate on taxes

by — ,

See, this is the type of Seattle Times editorial that really pisses me off, not so much because I disagree with the opinion expressed (and I sure as hell do), but because I find its rhetoric shallow, insulting and intentionally misleading… the type of piece we’re told we should expect from a lowly blogger, not the editorial board of a major daily newspaper.

The issue is taxes, which the Times once again opposes, but the premise is absolute bullshit, simplistically framing the budget debate as an either/or between budget cuts or tax increases:

FOR the two years beginning July 1, state government forecasts an $8 billion deficit — a sum equal to one-quarter of the money spent in the past two years. The chasm is not a gap the people can be expected to fill.

Of course not, and nobody—I mean absolutely nobody —is suggesting a revenue-only response to this unprecedented budget crisis during an economic downturn of historic proportions.  Yet in their lede, the Times intentionally conflates the notion of using tax increases to fill part of the gap with the paranoid fantasy of using such revenues to fill all of the gap… and that’s just plain dishonest.  Or perhaps, crazy.

If the state asks them — and by law, it would have to — they would say no.

Well, if the Times says voters would say “no,” then I suppose it’s just a waste of money even holding a vote.  After all, these are the top-notch prognosticators who urged the dismantling of Sound Transit after 2007’s Prop 1 went bust, accusing transit proponents of being delusional, and claiming “the ballot measure failed because the light-rail part was too expensive and created a tax that was too high.”

Can’t get much more in touch with voters than that, huh?

And why should they say otherwise? It is their government. They pay for it, most directly in sales taxes. And they have been buying fewer things for themselves. Some have lost their incomes, or expect to. Others have seen their assets shrink. They feel poorer. They feel less secure. And they are.

Damn right it’s our government, and it’s a government that provides services we need and want.  That’s why voters in the most populous regions of the state consistently vote to raise our own taxes, and why even I-912’s proposed gas tax repeal failed by a comfortable margin statewide despite the supposed popular backlash we were all warned about.

And let me just pause here for a moment to comment on the editorial’s headline: “Washington taxpayers can’t bail out state lawmakers.” I mean… what the fuck? That’s just plain disrespectful, and totally nonconstructive.

We wouldn’t be asked to bail out our lawmakers, we’d be asked to keep our government functioning at somewhere near the level we want it.  And if the Times was at all interested in promoting a civil debate rather than just provoking a knee-jerk, anti-government reaction, they wouldn’t so shamelessly vilify lawmakers for a budget crisis that they full well know is largely the result of a worldwide economic collapse unseen since the days of the Great Depression.

This Eymanesque anti-lawmaker crap is just mean-spirited and lazy.

They now hear pleas that certain state programs are needed more than ever. Some are. But there is that $8 billion hole. Even when reduced to roughly $5 billion with the timely arrival of federal fill dirt, the gap is still too wide to reasonably be filled with new and higher taxes.

Again… who the hell is suggesting even $5 billion in new taxes, let alone $8 billion?  Give us some examples.

Consider some of the tax proposals introduced in Olympia. Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, proposes a 0.215-percent tax on primary plastic and plastic containers. Rep. Deb Eddy, D-Kirkland, would extend the sales tax to hair transplants and cosmetic dentistry for people who already had a “normal appearance.” Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, would impose a gross-receipts tax on services delivered over the Internet. Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Medina, would add another dollar a pack to cigarettes. Rep. Maralyn Chase, D-Edmonds, would impose a 6-percent tax on small gasoline-powered equipment such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers.

All these taxes together would fill about 7 percent of a $5 billion gap.

Let’s see, 7 percent of $5 billion comes to about $350 million.  Hardly the stark either/or proposition postulated in the editorial’s lede.  But wait… there’s always that doomsday scenario…

One bill would fill all of it: Senate Bill 5104 by Sen. Rosa Franklin, D-Tacoma. It is a personal-income tax with brackets of 2.2 percent, 3.5 percent and 6 percent, with the break points for a married couple at $50,000 and $120,000. This raises more than enough for the state — and takes it directly from private spending, private saving and private investment, all of which are necessary for economic recovery.

Sen. Franklin proposes her personal income tax bill every year, God bless her, and it rarely even gets a public hearing, let alone a vote in committee.  The Times knows that, and to raise the income tax specter now, in this context, with this sweet old lady cast as the political super-villain poised to achieve what popular Gov. Dan Evans couldn’t accomplish at his peak, is a deliberate and dishonest scare tactic, pure and simple.

82-year-old Sen. Rosa Franklin

82-year-old Sen. Rosa Franklin

(Furthermore, the Times also knows that Sen. Franklin isn’t even proposing an income tax as a means of filling the budget gap, but rather as part of a broader restructuring package that would also dramatically reduce the state portion of the sales and property taxes.  Whether a restructured tax system that includes an income tax would raise more or less dollars, or remain revenue neutral, is an entirely separate debate from tax restructuring itself.)

There is the problem for Democrats who would send a tax package to voters. If their tax does the job, it will be an economy-killer. If it is a bearable tax, it won’t do the job.

I guess if they say it often enough, that this is an either/or option, they hope their readers will believe it true.  But it’s not.  If the legislature sends a tax package to voters it will be to fill part of the budget gap, not all of it.

The remaining option is cuts. They are painful, but they will have to fill most of that $5 billion gap.

The state must cut, cut, cut.

Actually, there are three options:  budget cuts, tax increases, and deficit spending, and considering the essential services at risk—not to mention that every $1 billion reduction in state spending is estimated to cost about 15,000 jobs—it would be irresponsible for lawmakers not to at least consider all the tools at their disposal.

So my suggestion to lawmakers is don’t allow yourselves to be cowed by the Seattle Times’ irresponsible demagoguery; the real reason they don’t want you to put a tax package on the ballot is that they are afraid it will pass.

Open government isn’t free

by — ,

A couple weeks ago I made fun of a Seattle Times editorial for suggesting that public agencies actually profit off of public records requests, for which some folks attacked me as some sort of anti-sunshine government stooge.  Well, in a guest column this week, attorney Ramsey Ramerman also took issue with Times, reiterating that open government is worth it, but it doesn’t come cheap:

Open government is not easy. Trust is hard to mint. It also isn’t free. Unlike in most states that allow agencies to charge for search time, agencies in Washington charge only for copy costs. Taxpayers foot the bill for the rest. Fairley’s bills try to look out for taxpayer dollars by making sure requesters are paying for the actual cost of copies they request. Why should taxpayers have to pay for copies when a requester asks for copies and then chooses not to pick them up?

Our public servants work hard to keep government open and to serve as prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars. It is too bad The Times insists on attacking them simply because they are trying to do both in hard economic times.

Something for nothing is always a popular position, but it isn’t very realistic or responsible.  The Times wants government agencies to be more responsive to public records requests, but doesn’t want to invest the money that would make this possible.  Pretty typical.

Stupid fucking credulous hacks

by — ,

The Stranger’s Dominic Holden catches the Seattle Times rewriting a federal prosecutor’s press release on a marijuana conviction.  Oops.

Reporters rewrite press releases all the time—usually about restaurant openings or events without much widespread impact. But the war on drugs costs billions a year, kills innocent people in raids, and has resulted in increased drug use. News coverage of any other miserable war would get a some scrutiny after 30 years of empty-handed results. In the service of objectivity, reporters for daily newspapers make a moral virtue of getting “both sides of the story.” The war on pot deserves more than regurgitating government press releases and some scrutiny—at least a fraction the scrutiny our reporters give plastic bags.

And for this they want a tax break?

Hike tuition to save higher ed

by — ,

In the best of all possible worlds, state taxpayers would invest lavishly in expanding access to quality higher education in Washington state.  But this isn’t the best of all possible worlds, and with an $8 billion revenue shortfall looming, even modest tax increases aren’t going to spare our state college and university system from devastating cuts.

But there is a rational, well-tested policy solution that would help alleviate some of the immediate pain, enabling state colleges and universities to make do with less while providing more access to more students than currently possible.  It is a policy currently in place at nearly every private college and university in the nation, and at public institutions in Texas, Ohio, Virginia and other states.  And it is a policy that has been proposed by both liberal bloggers like me, and by Republican state legislators:

Dramatically raise tuition while shifting the bulk of state funding from the current flat, per-student subsidy to a means-tested, financial aid model.

Those students and families who can afford to pay the full cost of tuition, will.  Those who cannot, will have the higher costs offset through grants and loans, proportionate to their needs, as long as they maintain academic standing.  The end result would be to increase tuition revenues without increasing the financial burden on students from low and middle income families.

Yes, this is a form of rationing, but we are already rationing higher education by reducing the number of available seats, increasing class sizes, and eliminating many academic options.  In education as in everything else, you get what you pay for, and if we buy ourselves a second-rate higher education system our children will ultimately inherit a second-rate economy.

So in the midst of this unprecedented budget crisis, when steep cuts to higher education funding are all but inevitable, the time has come for legislators in both parties to brave the public’s understandable, but knee-jerk, revulsion to tuition increases, and move to a financial model that guarantees the greatest access to the best higher education system the state can afford to provide.

DISCLAIMER:
This isn’t the first time I’ve advocated for the high tuition/high financial aid model.  In fact, I first hawked this proposal back in July of 2004, and at least four times since:  here, here, here and here.  So once again it is only fair to disclose that my own GET investment for my daughter (four years of tuition and fees purchased at 2002 prices) insulates us from rising tuition costs, regardless of means.  In fact, dramatically higher tuition could prove a windfall should my daughter choose to go to a private or out of state school.  Just thought you should know.

Griffeymania eludes me

by — ,

I don’t get this whole “Griffeymania” thing, especially considering his obvious lack of dedication to the game.

I mean, if Griffey really cared about the fans, he would have always done his utmost to excel by, you know… pumping himself full of dangerous, muscle-building steroids, like his ex-teammate A-Rod.  But no, Griffey just allowed himself to get old.

How selfish.

Murray kicks ass in 2010 US Senate poll

by — ,

The first poll in Washington’s 2010 US Senate race has been released, and it looks good for incumbent Democrat Patty Murray.

The Daily Kos/Research 2000 survey polled head-to-head matchups between Sen. Murray and both Dave Reichert and Rob McKenna, both of whom Murray led by double-digit margins.  Sen. Murray scored a respectable 55% favorable rating, whereas Reichert and McKenna registered 38% and 34% favorable respectively.

Not surprising really, though apart from Murray’s strength I think the survey also reveals the inherent weakness of the Republican bench here in Washington state. Indeed, that DKos/R2K would even bother to poll head-to-head with Reichert and McKenna is telling, considering that neither is likely to challenge Murray in 2010.

Reichert is a political lightweight with demonstrated shallow support even within his own district.  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a Reichert Senate run would end up any differently than 2004, when an equally politically diminutive George Nethercutt got his ass whipped by the physically diminutive Murray.  Reichert might be stupid enough to give it go, but I doubt his handlers are.

Meanwhile, only 63% of respondents even had an opinion of McKenna, despite him being the highest ranking Republican official statewide, and arguably the most talented politician in the WSRP.  McKenna is widely considered to be biding his time in preparation for a 2012 gubernatorial run, a race for which, four years out, many political insiders rank him the frontrunner, despite his obvious handicap (ie, his Republicanism).  McKenna would have to be absolutely crazy to risk his gubernatorial bid on a quixotic challenge of Murray.  And McKenna is not crazy.

Of course, if DKos/R2K was going to run a poll, they had to do a head to head with somebody, and for the life of me I don’t have any better suggestions.  Dino Rossi?  Cathy McMorris-Rodgers? Mike!™ McGavick?  I don’t expect any of them to run, and I wouldn’t expect them to win if they did.  But who else does the WSRP have?

Just goes to show you how weak the Republican bench is in Washington state these days.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.