After the bailout bill went down to a surprise defeat, largely due to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s inability to deliver the Republican votes he had promised, Boehner blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claiming that many members withheld their vote after she hurt their feelings by delivering a speech that was “overly partisan.” Um… it wasn’t.
The Republicans are a bunch of crybabies, and so it is fitting that in response, they got such a severe spanking at the hands of Rep. Barney Frank.
Chris Mulick has written his last blog post for the Tri-City Herald… or anything else for that matter, announcing that he’s turning in his press credentials tomorrow to take a public information post with the state Senate Democratic caucus.
I can’t point to one single reason that fueled this decision. There are many factors involved in the complex equation.
But certainly, the financial troubles plaguing this industry have created considerable uncertainty. And while the Herald has given me every assurance my job is safe in this bureau it’s unsettling how quickly the unthinkable has become reality in this business. With a young family, I’ve no choice but to risk jumping too soon. I simply can’t risk jumping too late.
Pretty soon the press houses in Olympia will consist of little more than Rich Roesler and Brad Shannon chatting with each other via a couple tin cans and a taut length of string.
Yet another Washington political reporter leaving the business, and only six weeks before one of the most consequential elections in history. This really sucks.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 777 points today at 10,365… 223 points below where it stood the day President George W. Bush took office. That’s a 2.1% drop over Bush’s 7 years, 9 months in office, for an annualized return of -0.27% making him the first president to produce a negative annualized return since Herbert Hoover. (By comparison, the DJIA produced annualized returns of about 28% during President Bill Clinton’s eight years in office.)
And compared to the other major market indices, the DJIA looks good. The S&P 500 fell 8% today, and is now down about 21% over the Bush administration, while the NASDAQ Composite fell another 9%, for a stunning 40% decline during the Bush years. To put that in perspective, a $100 investment in an index fund tracking the NASDAQ would now be worth only $48.50 in inflation adjusted dollars.
Remember, it was the Bush administration who declared a crisis that required an immediate bailout, it was Bush who put forth the original proposal, it was Bush who joined with Democrats on a bipartisan compromise, and it was Bush who ultimately failed to bring his House caucus with him. Oh… and it was Bush’s failed economic policies and disregard for regulation that laid the groundwork for this mess.
So much for the “CEO president.”
UPDATE:
I’ve edited the DJIA numbers to reflect the actual close; apparently it was dropping so fast at the buzzer it took a while for the ticker to catch up with the trades.
The Seattle Times wants the gubernatorial candidates to talk about budget cuts:
GOV. Christine Gregoire and Republican challenger Dino Rossi said the right things about taxes: They both pledged not to increase them to fill the state’s projected $3.2 billion budget hole.
That is the only rational position for a state that cannot abide higher taxes at a time of such economic fragility.
Because nothing boosts the local economy like slashing spending and cutting jobs.
It is not the “only rational position” and the fact that they would phrase it that way is a window into the arrogant and dismissive attitude of the Times ed board. It is a rational position—singular—but there are plenty of other rational economic positions, some even in favor of fiscal stimulus during an economic downturn. There are strong arguments to be made for avoiding tax hikes, but to dismissively imply that all those who dare to argue point are “irrational” is both childish and insulting.
Furthermore, not all taxes and tax breaks are equal, each providing different economic incentives and disincentives. For example, a gas tax holiday would only increase demand for expensive foreign oil, while eliminating jobs building and maintaining necessary transportation infrastructure. Surely, amongst the billions of dollars in new tax exemptions granted by the legislature over the past decade, there are some that are not delivering to taxpayers the promised return. Eliminating these nonperforming “tax expenditures” could contribute greatly toward balancing the next budget without any detrimental economic effect… though the knee-jerk, anti-tax Times would surely revile such a move as a tax hike.
I agree that the candidates need to start talking about what they intend to cut, but the Times’ efforts to dumb down and simplify discourse exclusively to a discussion of cuts, only serves to curb debate, not expand it, and is a disservice to their readers.
Rep. Jay Inslee was the only Democratic member of WA’s congressional delegation to vote against today’s Wall Street bailout bill. Here is his statement:
WASHINGTON, DC — Today, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) voted against the $700 billion bailout package for troubled American financial markets in what he called “a vote of conscience.”
“The initial plan by Secretary Paulson was completely unacceptable, but the revised package was not much better,” said Inslee. “For all the talk of protecting the taxpayer, there were only limited promises that the taxpayers’ $700 billion investment would be paid back and there were no provisions to help struggling homeowners.”
“If we authorize $700 billion in a bailout for Wall Street, we must ensure – and not just hope – that all the money gets paid back to the American taxpayer. The plan we were presented with did not do that. Also, I saw no real provisions in the revised plan to help stem the real cause of the crisis, which is the collapse in our housing markets. We needed a pro-growth bill to stimulate the economy, and that was not what we got.”
“But now is the time for Congress to come together again and vote on a real, comprehensive plan that will solve the crisis while still protecting the taxpayers and restarting our economic growth. I am prepared to stay here and in session as long as it takes, and I know many of my colleagues in Congress feel the same.”
“The American people deserve better. I could not, with good conscience, vote for the bill presented to me.”
The vote is still open for arm twisting, but as of this moment the bailout bill is failing 199 to 223. More coming…
UPDATE:
207 to 226… Dems 141-94, Republicans 66-132. Time has expired, and members can be heard hollering for “regular order”… in other words, calling for the vote to be closed.
UPDATE, UPDATE (11:05AM):
The bailout bill fails 205-228.
UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
It should be noted that while there was a bipartisan rejection of the bill in its current form, President Bush could only muster about a third of House Republicans behind his proposal. Considering the circumstances, this was about as close as we come in the US to a vote of no confidence, and was this a parliamentary system, our government would have just collapsed. Fortunately, we have new elections already scheduled for six weeks from tomorrow.
WHAT’S NEXT?
The Dow is currently down 450 points at 10,692. That’s not so surprising considering the gains at the end of last week had already built in anticipation of the bailout passing… and the expectation remains that a bailout plan, in one form or another, will eventually pass Congress, and probably soon. Just not this one.
Again, I’m not necessarily opposed to some sort of rescue package, I just want one that focuses on the core problems, protects taxpayers, and doesn’t hamstring the Obama administration from effectively acting later, as this ongoing crisis unfolds. If it takes another week or two to do this right, we’ll all be better off for it.
WA DELEGATION:
Aye: Baird, Dicks, Larsen, McDermott, Smith. Nay: Inslee, McMorris-Rodgers, Reichert.
And it should be noted that before the vote, Darcy Burner told the Seattle Times’ Emily Hefter that she would have voted against this package:
“We need to do something,” she said. But she said the compromise package being pushed by Democratic leaders in Congress doesn’t go far enough to protect taxpayers.
Burner said it doesn’t fix the underlying problems that caused the financial crisis, namely too much deregulation of the financial industry. And she said it doesn’t do enough to limit executive pay.
Burner’s opposition marks one of the first times she has come out against the House Democratic leadership, especially House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is championing the bailout package and has supported Burner’s Congressional bid.
It’s not really the first time Burner has opposed the House leadership, but it is the first time the press has reported it. So I guess it’s easy to understand how Hefter might conflate the two.
And while I’m happy Reichert voted no, just listen to this pathetic interview gave this morning to NWCN, in which he answers every question with a question. I dunno, it sure looks to me like he was waiting to see whether it would pass or fail before he determined how he was going to vote.
WA DELEGATION UPDATE:
Oops, forgot about Hastings, who also voted nay. But then, who doesn’t forget about Hastings?
It seems like a simple question: what is the purpose of mass transit? And I have a feeling that how you answer this question goes a long way toward predicting how you’ll vote on Prop 1.
Personally, I believe that the purpose of mass transit is to move people from one place to another—between home and work and shopping and recreation, and back again—quickly, conveniently and affordably. That’s why I prefer grade-separated solutions like rail: they’re fast, comfortable and reliable. And I’m guessing that a majority of folks who support Prop 1 would give a similar answer.
The No folks, on the other hand, I’m guessing they see mass transit primarily serving a different purpose altogether, namely, relieving traffic congestion. They don’t envision themselves using mass transit, but for the most part wouldn’t mind paying toward a cost-effective solution that got other people out of their cars and off the roads, preferably soon, and at the lowest possible cost. Still, their primary concern being freeing up space on our crowded freeways, they’d prefer a more direct solution rather than paying a perceived premium for a transit system other people will use.
I think, perhaps, this may explain why the two sides so often seem to talk past each other. One side sees transit primarily as a means toward easing traffic congestion for single occupancy vehicles, while the other sees transit commuting as an end in itself.
What do you think?
Dear Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Inslee, Smith, McDermott, Baird, Larsen, Dicks (and yes, Reichert and McMorris)…
Please don’t vote for this Wall Street bailout. Not this bailout. Not now. Not with this administration.
Please… please… be skeptical. Read James K. Galbraith. Read Stirling Newberry. But whatever you do, don’t get bullied or rushed into sinking $700 billion of taxpayer money into a bailout that won’t do anything to fix the fundamental problems at the heart of this financial crisis. For that matter, don’t accept as a matter of fact that this is a financial crisis… at least, not the kind that requires you to cast a vote this week or risk a second Great Depression.
Ask questions. Be prudent. Ask even more questions. Authorize, say, $150 billion if you really feel the need to do something now, to prop things up through the end of the Bush administration. But don’t just vote yes on this bill because you’re afraid of voting no. There is too much at stake, and it is not at all clear that this bailout plan will do anything but delay the inevitable, all the while lining the pockets of the already super-rich.
The problem, in the end, is that Americans simply consume more than we produce, and not a dime of the $700 billion the White House is requesting will do anything to address this core economic flaw. We either have to produce more or consume less, or preferably, some combination of the two. Austerity may not be a politically popular thing to talk about out loud… so don’t. But you need to start talking about it privately amongst yourselves, and have this stark reality inform your vote.
So please… please… take your time. Remember the Patriot Act. Remember the Iraq War Authorization. And don’t let yourselves be rolled by the Bush administration one more time.
UPDATE:
Call your Representative and Senators, 800-473-6711, and tell them to take their time and just say “no.”
UPDATE, UPDATE:
On HuffPo, Dean Baker warns us not to be scared by “phony stories” about a second Great Depression:
As Josh reported from Thursday’s gubernatorial debate, Dino Rossi voiced support for repealing Washington’s highest in the nation minimum wage (currently $8.05 an hour), tied to inflation by a citizen’s initiative. Rossi told the Association of Washington Businesses:
”The minimum wage was not meant to be a family wage. It’s meant to be an entry level wage.”
Rarely during this campaign has Rossi made the mistake of publicly stating his position on an issue on which he is so out of step with voters. Don’t get me wrong, Rossi is way out of step on a number of issues, he just refuses to talk about them, and so far our press has been mostly complicit in his silence. But this time he spoke loud and clear, and one would think that reporters might follow up.
It’s encouraging to see the Gregoire campaign quickly respond with an ad; I just hope they continue to hit him on the minimum wage. And harder.
Surprise! The Seattle Times urges No on Prop 1!
THE Sound Transit tax increase, Proposition 1, is a bad proposal. We opposed the same tax a year ago and do so again.
It’s not the same tax as last year, but more importantly, it’s not the same package, which is what the Times really hopes the reader will infer from that lede. They think they’re so clever.
First, it is too much. Half a cent on the sales tax adds up to a 9.5-percent tax in Seattle and about that much systemwide. That would be one of the highest sales taxes in the United States. It says: “Don’t spend your money here.” It retards our economy. It hurts the poor.
You know, if you’re really so concerned about the size of our regressive sales tax, then how about showing some support for a goddamn income tax? No? Really? In fact, WA’s state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income has been steadily dropping for the past decade and a half, and is now ranked about 34th nationwide, so you can complain all you want about the size of our sales tax, but if you actually cared about an informed debate you might want to add a little context.
Proposition 1 is being marketed as the solution to an immediate need. Salesmen have made up phrases like “immediately increase buses,” “immediate solutions to relieve gridlock” and their favorite, “Transit Now.”
But with Proposition 1, what you get is a Tax Now — a tax that goes to 9.5 percent Jan. 1. A few buses and commuter trains come soon, but most of your money would go to light rail not fully open to you until the 2020s. It is not “Transit Now.”
Yeah, God forbid we invest in anything we might need in the future. What a bunch of selfish little babies.
This bias against helping people now is why King County Executive Ron Sims argued to keep Proposition 1 off the ballot. As head of the government that owns Metro, the transit agency struggling to meet existing need, he didn’t want to wait until the 2020s.
So… is the Times suggesting we should add another half cent to the sales tax to buy more buses now? I didn’t think so.
Then the sales pitch shifts. The salesmen admit light rail is not about now. It’s about the future. It’s about getting people out of their cars.
Now they’re just making shit up, substituting their own internal dialogue for actual reporting.
This is an improbable view of the future. Most people don’t want to get out of their cars. As the world changes, they may buy cars that burn fuel from tar sands, canola, algae or wood chips. They may have electric batteries charged by power from the sun, the wind, nuclear reaction or the heat of the Earth.
But most will have their own wheels because they have their own places to go.
Um… has anybody on the Times ed board ever viewed the world from anywhere but Mercer Island? Where I come from, a lot of folks own cars and use transit. Maybe they don’t own as many cars as they would have without access to light rail, and maybe a lot of folks put off the expense of owning a car until they have kids… but they still own cars.
I’d say that an improbable view of the world is one solely predicated on a few decades of the sort of failed transportation policy that has gotten us into this mess.
No doubt, more people will take transit. But they will demand service over a wide area — and a price they can afford. Wide and cheap. A spider web of service.
In King County, that’s Metro: It costs 0.9 cents of tax on every dollar and has buses that go to more than 9,000 stops.
Really? So why doesn’t Frank Blethen take the bus to work? I’ve been by his house. (My dog peed on his security gate.) He lives a short walk from a bus stop, and there are buses that go straight to Fairview Fanny. So if buses are the be all and end all of transportation, why isn’t Frank riding ’em. (Oh yeah, I forgot… buses are for poor people.)
If Proposition 1 passes, on every dollar you will be paying another 0.9 cents (the new 0.5 cents plus the existing 0.4 cents) to Sound Transit. The map of light rail in the mid-2020s will not be a spider web, but a simple “T.” It will have a few stops at hugely expensive stations.
Well now, that’s simply a lie. We’ll be paying the existing 0.4 cent tax regardless of whether Prop. 1 passes. They really should be ashamed of themselves.
And as for dismissing the light rail map as a simple “T,” um, really? Is your argument against expanding light rail really that we don’t have enough light rail now to make it worth expanding? Or that the package isn’t big enough? Do you actually read your own editorials before sending them to press?
Eyeball the station on Highway 99 at SeaTac. It is a monument — to something. But it is still one transit stop.
And your point is? That we don’t have enough transit stops? Um… that’s the whole point of Prop 1… to build more transit stops.
Buses have their drawbacks: They can get stuck in traffic.
They often smell of urine and poop.
But they can be unstuck with bus lanes. More bus lanes are coming — on Aurora Avenue, Northwest 15th Avenue in Seattle and on the proposed Highway 520 bridge.
And.. um… where else? And what about the sort of grade separated transit that much of the light rail line offers, zipping commuters over, under and around street traffic? Didn’t think so.
Buses are cheaper than rail and more flexible.
More flexible, yes, but that’s actually a downside if part of your goal is to encourage more dense development around the stops. As for cost, buses require a smaller capital investment, if all you’re going to do is put them on the existing roads, but they’re significantly more expensive to operate over the long run. Over the long run, rail is actually cheaper if you amortize the capital investment over the long life of the infrastructure.
Proposition 1 slights them: The two center lanes on the Interstate 90 bridge, which now serve buses and Mercer Islanders, become rail-only. Buses are kicked out. Buses will also be kicked out of Seattle’s downtown transit tunnel.
Well, you gotta admire their honesty. Since really, the Mercer Island based Times ed board’s entire opposition to light rail is based on the fact that it threatens their coveted single occupancy vehicle access to I-90’s HOV lanes. Under Prop 1’s plans, there will still be HOV lanes on I-90; they just won’t be open SOV drivers going to and from Mercer Island. Boo hoo.
But one more thing about trains vs buses. People like trains a helluva lot more than they like buses, and given their druthers they’ll almost always choose the former. So shouldn’t government be providing the services voters actually want, as opposed to the services the Times thinks we should want?
Finally, it is said that Proposition 1 is not about us, but our grandchildren. So it is. It is a proposal to extend two costly rail lines and to oblige our grandchildren to pay for them. The sales tax is raised to 9.5 percent. It is a lot, and it goes on for a very long time.
Um, let’s see now. I’m 45 and my daughter is 11. Prop 1 only authorizes the additional half cent tax to be levied through 2038, by which time I might have a grandchild about the same age as my daughter is now. So no… I don’t think it accurate to state that the measure will “oblige our grandchildren to pay” for the rail lines. Our children yes, but our grandchildren no.
However, our grandchildren will have the opportunity to ride this modern, grade separated, hydro-powered electric light rail system. And depending on where they choose to live, they’ll have the freedom of choosing whether to take on the additional expense of owning a car.
That seems like a pretty good deal for our grandkids, and our region. If only the previous generation had had the foresight and inter-generational generosity to build this thing 40 years ago, we wouldn’t have to pay for it now.
The NY Times highlights John McCain’s gambling problem. And it’s a problem on two levels.
As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country….
“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.
The Times describes McCain as a “lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table.” No shit, Sherlock.
But I’m curious if our local press, who has silently sat back (when not actively collaborating) and allowed Dino Rossi to slander Gov. Gregoire as “Casino Chris” for rejecting a tribal gaming compact that would have led to a tenfold increase in WA’s gambling industry… I wonder if they’ll ask the Republicans that ironic question about how they feel about the man at the top of their ticket, the “founding father of Indian gaming”…?
Probably not.
Just a couple more hours left in the Daily Kos “Hell to Pay” fundraiser for Darcy Burner, and they’ve raised over $18,000 $20,565. Huh. That’s great. But it’s still less than the $25,000 Al Franken raised last week. So if you haven’t yet given to the campaign (or you haven’t yet given all you plan to give), now’s a great time to give so that Darcy can air more effective ads like this:
There is a bizarre story making the rounds that John Elway’s new financee, actress Paige Green, was previously engaged to King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn, and while I love juicy rumors like that, this one apparently turns out not to be true.
In reporting on the Dunn-Green engagement back in October 2006, the Puget Sound Business Journal described her as a “Hollywood actress.”
Two powerful local families will merge, with the recent engagement of 9th District King County Councilman Reagan Dunn to Hollywood actress Paige Green (“Ray of Darkness,” “Gory Gory Hallelujah” and more).
And that appears to be true. I think. But sports and celebrity blogs have described Elway’s fiancee as the same Paige Green, with the same Hollywood resume.
Here’s what I think happened. The AP reports that Elway’s Paige Green is a “former Oakland Raiders cheerleader,” while the IMDb entry for Dunn’s Paige Green also describes her as a “former professional cheerleader.” Perhaps either AP or IMDb is wrong. Or they’re both right, and it’s just a confusing coincidence.
In any case, while they’re both attractive, they don’t really look all that much alike, and Dunn’s Paige Green (on the right) appears quite a few years younger:
I’ve emailed Dunn asking him to set the record straight, but considering that his website says he and Paige were married in 2007, I’d say this rumor is pretty darn false. Good for Reagan… bad for us rumor mongers.
According to a KING-5/SurveyUSA poll, Washington state bucked the national trend, with a majority of viewers here saying that John McCain won last night’s debate.
Okay. I guess that’s possible. I’m often told that Seattle is different from every other place in the world, so why shouldn’t Washington state be different from the rest of the nation? But here’s the part that jumped out at me:
Immediately following tonight’s debate between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 state of Washington adults, of whom 631 watched tonight’s debate.
Really? Over 63% of Washington adults watched last night’s debate? That figure seems awfully high, especially considering that according to the overnight Neilsen ratings, only 30% of Seattle-Tacoma TVs were tuned in to the event. (39% in the Portland market.) The final data won’t be released until Monday, but if the trends from the 55 top markets hold true, then about 57 million Americans watched last night’s debate.
Let’s for the sake of argument assume that all 57 million viewers were adults, 18 or older (although I know for a fact that at least one was an 11-year-old girl), and that adults comprise about 75% of the roughly 305 million people who now populate our nation. That would mean that only about 25% of American adults (57/(305*.75)) watched last night’s debate.
Not 63%. I know we’re different, but not that different. In fact, according to Nielsen, Seattle-Tacoma’s debate ratings were actually on the low end, ranking only 46th out of 55 markets.
So, let’s just say I have some questions about the validity SurveyUSA’s sample.
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!