If I told you at the start of the legislative session that there was a large hole in the budget and that there were 2 or maybe 3 possibilities to fix it, you’d probably think the moderate thing to do would be pick some of each of the ways available. Moderates might, to use less vague terms, want some tax increases and some spending cuts while they looked at ways to deficit spend through the downturn. Moderate the pain of tax increases with spending cuts and moderate the pain of spending cuts with tax increases. Yet somehow in our state, the people who want all cuts get to claim moderate status. Take the Trib editorial board, for example:

The spending plan, unveiled jointly by Democrat and Republican budget writers, was a feat of compromise. Working across the aisle, lawmakers were able to stave off the cruelest of options for filling the state’s $5 billion shortfall.

“Reduce, but not eliminate” was their guiding mantra. Legislators saved the Basic Health Plan, but continued the freeze on enrollment. They preserved access to state health insurance for immigrant children, but tightened eligibility.

Pain but not death. When so much pain could have been avoided, that’s still moderation. Sure not letting people into Basic Health will be disaster, but otherwise, we’d have to consider cutting tax breaks for out of state banks. You guys, we can’t do that and be moderate, can we?

It carves 22 percent out of the higher education budget, but gives universities the authority to set their own tuition. It cuts funds for teacher pay, but only commensurate with the hit state workers are taking and without freezing longevity pay.

It makes it tougher to educate the next generation. It decides that the best way to attract new teachers is to cut their pay. In a time when American manufacturing is on the decline and a college education is more important than ever, it makes one harder to obtain. But at least there’s still a tax break for bull semen.

The budget is equal-opportunity agony, with the priority where it should be – basic human necessities – and the responsibility for its tough choices shared by both parties.

Except for the tough choice to close multiple loopholes. That was only one side. And even though it would have eased the pain, it would be partisan. Therefore not moderate. Therefore bad.

Anyway, then they go on to say that making the workers’ comp system more corporate friendly is also a victory for moderates. Because blindly giving more power to employers is moderate. I don’t think every moderate decision is necessarily the right one (I don’t think I’m going to convince anyone that a 70% high earner’s income tax is moderate, for example). But I wish the ed boards across the state at least had the courage to call the extremism they’re pushing what it is.

One of the most dispiriting aspects of the shitty budget is the fact that a majority of House legislators voted to soften the blow. The most ludicrous, outdated tax exemptions remain on the books, not because we lack the majority the constitution requires to repeal them, but because of the extra requirement imposed by the voters. I hope Darryl is right that this time the legal maneuvering will work. But if anything, past courts’ rulings have been pretty consistent that they don’t want to hear any challenge to these initiatives, so nobody has standing.

So if this challenge fails, I’d like to offer a potential solution that pits Tim Eyman’s populism against itself. In the past the same legislature that claims to respect the will of the people in these instances have been quick to cut the class size initiatives. So my solution is a more broad based initiative that says the legislature needs 2/3 to cut education (or social services, or higher ed whatever polls best, or whoever is willing to spot the money).

Ideally, this would provide a class of people with standing, but as with the tax side, I’m not sure the court will think anyone has standing. Still, even if this bad, probably unconstitutional law stays on the books, it’s better than the status quo.

Right now, there is no incentive for the no tax people to compromise since cuts need 50% and tax increases need 66%. But, if budget cuts have the same hurdles to pass, then we might see a more balanced approach emerge.

And, yes, I’m aware that everybody has their own idea for an initiative, but nobody has the money. I’d prefer a court win to initiative trickery. But we can come back to the same place every few years, or we can find another way around it.

– What ABL Said.

– 100 mbps on the low end.

– The family planning bill I’ve been mentioning passed the state house.

– The Tea Party doesn’t seem as popular this year.

– After this May, are the Mariners legit? This is the most excited I’ve been for a sub .500 team in as long as I can remember.

Ryan Blethen has a column defending the fact that the ed board talks about the mayor of the city in its masthead and the speaker of the state house. As a frequent critic of the ed board, let me say: that isn’t the problem. The problem is that you’re wrong about them.

Even casual readers of The Seattle Times’ Opinion section have probably noticed two names: Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and state House Speaker Frank Chopp.

Yes. They are high profile elected officials. I expect the ed board of the largest daily paper in the state to mention them.

They are difficult to miss because we have been writing a lot about them. As the editorial page editor I believe it is important to be persistent on issues we feel strongly about or that demand a spotlight.

Does anyone say not to cover the legislature or city government?

We have been all over Chopp, a Seattle Democrat, for sitting on a bill to revamp workers’ compensation. Chopp’s resistance to the reform proposal became a serious threat to completing the state’s budget.

The bill is unnecessary to move a budget forward, so it’s anyone insisting that it be part of budget negotiations is holding up the budget. Also, we don’t need to revamp, workers’ comp. And if we did we should probably not do it in a corporate friendly way. But seriously, nobody says don’t try to hold Frank Chopp accountable. We’re just saying what you want him to do is dumb and there are better targets if you actually care about passing the budget.

But as always it’s McGinn who really gets under the Seattle Times’ skin. Ryan, start off with something I’m not sure if it’s a mixed metaphor or horrible pun:

McGinn has become a regular thanks to his tunnel vision on the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and numerous other issues. Last week’s McGinn editorial du jour was his hiring of the former advocacy director of the Cascade Bicycle Club. In an editorial we argued that David Hiller is not a great hire for a transportation and external communications gig. More important, though, was the way the announcement of the hiring was handled.

I literally can’t tell if “tunnel vision” is a joke or if he’s just trying to say McGinn is obsessed with one issue. In any event, you can’t have tunnel vision on “numerous other issues.” Tunnel vision means one issue, numerous issues means more than one issue.

Anyway, David Hiller is fucking rad. He helped turn the region more bike friendly. Right now, to take one example out of many, there’s construction on the Burke-Gillman trail in Lake Forest Park that Cascade helped bring about. Yes, he’s said some controversial things. Yes, he can be a lightning rod. Those are things that make an interesting story. The announcement aspect is so boring (not to mention piss poorly handled by the local media) that just thinking about it now, I’ve fallen asleep and am typing in my sleep zzzzzzz.

When the city is facing budget shortfalls, a mayor should know he needs to justify the hiring of a political ally in a well-paying job — even if that $87,500 job fills an existing opening. A clear explanation of Hiller’s hiring is not what the public heard. His job description was vague and the media were provided with a salary higher than the actual number.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*Wakes Up*

*Re-reads this paragraph and decides to keep making fun of it*

Why should he get credit for significant cuts his office’s budget? Don’t you know that one specific hire is more important than the overall picture? (And I’m not even arguing that the amount he cut is right; the city probably should have kept the head tax, and it some of that money stayed in the mayor’s office, that’s fine by me.) Again, you’re allowed to look at the mayor’s office, but when you make dumb arguments, expect to get called on them.

Reporters rightly had questions because of the salary given and the lack of a job description. KOMO-TV was frustrated enough to send a reporter to McGinn’s house the evening Hiller’s hiring was announced. This angered the mayor and his staff. So much so that Aaron Pickus, the mayor’s spokesman, sent an email to the television stations telling them how far away they should stand from the mayor.

Because they have no idea how to contact him during business hours or at any of the multiple public events he does around town, KOMO were forced to go to his house after 9:00. And don’t give me that he’s a public official bullshit. We’re talking about a fairly routine hire.

Any politician with a taxpayer-supported salary should understand that reporters might show up in places they would rather be left alone. There is no Fortress of Solitude in politics.

If this was a major event, I’d agree. If, say, one of McGinn’s deputy mayors had got arrested and McGinn refused to talk about it, I’d be with you. Go to his house and demand answers. For David Hiller being hired, wait until the morning.

Anyway, how about going into super defensive mode and attacking a straw man?

One of the criticisms I often hear is that it is unfair for us to beat up on public figures. It would be if they didn’t have multiple outlets to voice their displeasure with us or support their cause. We are quick to offer up oped and letter space to the people we take to task. If a politician is frustrated with our stance they are free to complain about it to reporters, to us, or to unions or to business chambers.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that nobody has ever said it’s unfair for any newspaper to beat up on public figures. They may say your take is unfair. That you’re focusing on some public officials over others. Maybe someone has compared it to the embarrassingly fawning coverage Boeing and Microsoft get. Anyway, Ryan Blethen thinks he’s very brave for doing his fucking job. Poorly.

At a recent Drinking Liberally, Goldy and I were discussing what the comment threads have become. I think regular open threads have kept most of the things that would otherwise be off topic out of the other threads (although not completely). And while the threads have always been pretty loose, since the 3 regulars are all part time, the enforcement of the comment policy has gone somewhat downhill.

So the question is: do we need a new comment policy now that Goldy isn’t posting, do we need better technology, or is it working fine now? Goldy said he would be willing to work on something with registration, but I’m not sure that he has the time, and I don’t know exactly what it would look like. I can step up enforcement somewhat, but between 8:30 and 4:30 (give or take depending on the day) on weekdays, that’s not going to happen, and I can’t really force the other posters to do anything.

I couldn’t find it on the legislature’s web page, but Planned Parenthood Votes says the family planning bill that I wrote about yesterday passed the House Ways and Means Committee. I’m not sure what the prospects are for it passing, but Planned Parenthood has a handy tool to contact your legislator.

I know it’s not on the tunnel itself, but on the process. Still, Seattle will get to have at least a proxy vote on the tunnel.

Acknowledging that the issue before the voters is limited to whether the city council has the right to accept the agreements by notice, and that it “does not resolve the issue of whether or not there is going to be a bored tunnel,” Middaugh said that nonetheless, “The overriding goal is to make sure that the voices of the people are heard when a policy decision is made.”

“The people of the city of Seattle have the right to be involved in that process.”

However, Middaugh said, “No matter what happens today, this decision is not a referendum on whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not. … It is a decision about how you make that decision about whether we’re going to have a tunnel or not.”

The section of the ordinance Middaugh said can go on the ballot, known as Section 6, delegates authority to the city council to issue a notice to proceed on the tunnel after the final environmental impact statement is adopted.

It should be a good campaign. And, of course as good a reason as any to lift the cost overrun provision. Also, hint hint.

Joni Balter has a column ostensibly arguing against the proposed Seattle mandatory sick leave (h/t).

But the idea of city government mandating paid sick leave, especially while small businesses try to recover from severe economic woes, is overbearing and tone deaf. If anyone is going to lead us out of the recession, it’s small businesses. This is the last thing they need.

Totally, let’s blindly trust business to do the right thing. For the economy’s sake. Also, there’s probably a public health concern here. Both with other employees and with the people those sick employees have to interact with (do you really want your waiter to have strep throat and no sick leave?). But anyway, it’s been done in several cities, how can we learn from their example? Did it hurt businesses? Were there measurable public health differences? Other consequences?

City Councilmember Nick Licata, who is proposing the idea, says San Francisco did something similar and did not experience a negative economic impact.

OK fine. Now, Joni, instead of addressing that please complain about the existence of San Francisco for like 3/4 of your opinion piece about sick leave?

Another proponent of the plan said, in essence, San Francisco is doing this, why shouldn’t we?

Good start, keep going!

For years, San Francisco has been the punch line for goofy liberalism. Citizens and government there do a lot of off-the-wall things Seattle need not emulate. This city decided to officially expand the name of pet owners to include pet guardians. More respectful, you know. In fact, Seattle should ban the argument that San Francisco is taking certain action and therefore Seattle should follow suit.

So your argument against mandatory sick leave in Seattle is that San Francisco calls pet owners “guardians.” Of course. Surely something about Happy Meals will seal the mandatory sick leave deal.

San Francisco has also effectively banned Happy Meals, or at least the toy given with meals that exceed set levels of calories, sugar and fat. I did not feed my children Happy Meals. I am as concerned as the next person about childhood obesity and junk food.

But come on. Where are the parents? Don’t they have work to do?

Because you need to hit certain nutritional requirements before you can add toys in with food in San Francisco restaurants, Seattle shouldn’t have mandatory sick leave. It makes perfect sense. Why didn’t I see it before?

Seattle doesn’t have to copy every bad decision San Francisco concocts. Indeed, Seattle should eschew that old saw, “San Francisco is doing it, why shouldn’t we?”

I like that the first time Balter used that phrase in the column, it was paraphrasing and by the end it’s in quotes. Either she forgot that she’s the one who made it up or she’s quoting herself. And it’s an old saw even though she made it up like 15 paragraphs ago (I skipped a lot of random SF nonsense for lack of jokes, you’re welcome).

NARAL Pro Choice Washington is pushing a bill in the special session to expand family planning services to 250% of the poverty line (it’s currently 200%). I’d like it to be for 100% of Washingtonians who want it, but this is a step in the right direction. It passed the state senate earlier this week, and has a hearing in the state house tomorrow. From their press release:

“This legislation is critical for women’s health,” said Lauren Simonds, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “In our current budget environment, expanding low-income women’s access to family planning care is a no-brainer. SB 5912 will save the state money, starting in the same biennium.”

“NARAL Pro-Choice Washington would like to thank the 30 senators from both parties who stood up for women and families and voted for this legislation,” she added.

Family planning funding is a smart investment. By increasing eligibility in the Take Charge program, the Medicaid Purchasing Administration’s most conservative estimate indicates net savings of at least $3.5 million over the coming biennium.

It has a hearing scheduled for the Ways and Means Committee tomorrow morning. You might want to see if you have a representative on the committee, and give them an email if you do. In this horrible budget cycle, there’s a chance for something positive.

– “a refresher course in the difference between consensual sex and assault”

– RIP, Harmon Killebrew.

– “And holy crap I literally made none of that up.”

– I usually don’t do videos in open threads (I just forward to Darryl). But I don’t think you’ll want to wait until Friday night to see Dorothy Parvaz talk about her detention. Thank goodness she’s been released.

– Sounds like a scam.

– See you on the streets for Bike to Work Day, and I’ll probably go to the after party!

With the weather finally turning nice and more people commuting by bike, I thought it would be a good time to discuss biking through the red lights. I do it occasionally, but under pretty specific circumstances. Some people, God love them, don’t blow through any reds, and some people seem to barely notice that there are conditions (let alone the red itself) that might warrant not going right now.

First off, if you don’t want to ever blow a red, that’s awesome. It can be dangerous. It can mess with pedestrians. Even if it is safe, it’s still illegal. In a city that doesn’t jay walk much, I can understand the urge to sit at those lights. Also, one of my favorite things about riding a bike in the city is the interactions you get with other bicyclists while waiting for the light to change. They’re usually short conversations that don’t get much beyond “where are you going?” but it’s still fun to talk to like minded people for a minute or two, and you’ll miss a lot of it if you go through the light.

That said, I blow red lights occasionally. I also jay walk in much the same way: be safe and don’t be an asshole. So the main question is not when do circumstances warrant it, but when don’t they: Don’t ever go through a red if there’s traffic.* Assume they can’t see you. Even if they can see you, they quite reasonably aren’t expecting you to blow the light when they have the right of way. But even if you can reasonably guess how fast the next car is coming, and that you can make it, don’t blow the light. If traffic is coming in that circumstance, there’s still a good chance that you’ll force them to hit the breaks or slow down by taking their foot off the gas. If they have the right of way, they shouldn’t have to do that. Bicyclists demand that cars share the road; we ought to extend the same kindness to drivers.

Even when there aren’t cars around, you still have an obligation to be safe and not an asshole to pedestrians and other bicyclists. If there’s a reasonable chance you might hit them, just stay put until everyone is clear. If the pedestrian at the curb is looking like she might cross, but you’re not sure, stay put. Hell, get off your bike, so they know you aren’t going until they’re done.

After that, I say go for it.

[Read more…]

I’ve been critical of Gregoire for various things. And Lee has bee a lot more critical than me especially after the misguided veto of the medical marijuana bill. But unlike Lee, I’d have no problem voting for her again (although I hope she doesn’t run, and if she does, I’ll gladly support someone else in a primary). There are real and important ways that she’s better than Rossi would have been. For one thing, she doesn’t seem to hate teachers like The Seattle Times’ Ed Board.

They spend a whole lot of time not engaging with Gregoire’s stated reasons for opposing the measure (in short, we’re in the middle of revising the way we evaluate teachers because how we currently evaluate them doesn’t work). There’s a little dancing around that, but even then it’s pretty minimal.

It would be great to have the 82,000-strong union on the right side but not at a cost that would be borne by students betting their educational futures on the success of reforms. Requiring districts to take performance into account during layoffs represents a significant game changer. Layoffs are disruptive; robbing classrooms of good teachers is even more harmful.

Lynne (or whoever, but it’s Lynne Varner), just because you saw Waiting For Superman doesn’t mean that teachers are wrong. They’re the ones pushing for smaller class sizes and better teacher pay while your ed board keeps demanding tax cut after tax cut that has the effect of larger class sizes and worse pay. Teachers and their unions are the ones pushing for higher quality K-12 education in Washington.

I’d bet if you wanted, it wouldn’t be too tough to get the teachers on board with these sorts of reforms as part of a grand bargain: If you pushed for 25 student maximum classes and teacher pay in the six figures (for example) along with smarter evaluations of this kind, I bet you could get the teachers unions to support it. Instead you insist on something less meaningful (and quite possibly arbitrary). And your ed board insists on the things that have made gutting education inevitable.

Most teachers are good instructional leaders not threatened by accountability. Uncertainty about the shift is outweighed by the fairness and legitimacy promised from new teacher evaluations coming down the legislative pike. Some districts, including Seattle Public Schools, have adopted better evaluations.

The newer evaluations are still untested and in most cases not even through the legislature yet. Let’s impose them!

The only employees left to fear performance-based layoffs are those who aren’t performing. That’s not who the governor should be protecting.

Or teachers who think perhaps the system won’t work as advertised. Maybe, just maybe, teachers think that the same legislature that’s been slashing education budgets doesn’t have the best interests of children we’re trying to educate at heart.

– I know I’m just a filthy hippie blogger or whatever. Sure HA has accused people of fucking pigs. But at least none of us have given an elected official the TMZ treatment. As the kids say, time for a blogger ethics panel.

– Nixon is Fixin’

– Another reason why Seattle should fish or cut bait on White Center annexation. I hope they keep both libraries open (h/t Ivan on Facebook).

– Vulnerable User Bill signed!

– Hexapod Haiku! (h/t)

The comment threads are dominated by just a few people. Some are great, some are trolls. Some are somewhere in between. But there are a lot of people who don’t comment. So, here on a lazy Saturday is a chance for those of you who don’t comment or don’t comment much to say “hi.” Or don’t: who in their right mind would want to interact with some of the commenters. Comments from regulars will be deleted.

I’m writing you as one of the few honest tunnel supporters who doesn’t seem to hate Seattle. One who opposes the cost overrun provision and has said at public forums that you think it matters and should be repealed. I know the cost overrun provision wasn’t on the agenda for the special session: how to fuck over education and public health slightly less badly than the Republicans tops the list. But now the tunnel will go to Seattle voters, and Seattle voters probably will reject it. This is probably your last chance to keep the tunnel, but the state is going to have to pick up the cost overruns.

I’m asking you to lead the charge to repeal the cost overrun provision and kneecap tunnel opponents like me. Repeal the cost overrun provision and commit the state to paying for a state highway. Repeal the cost overrun provision and take away an argument that resonates with Seattle. Repeal the overrun provision and stem the tide of anti-Seattle nonsense that the legislature keeps pushing.

Now, a repeal of the cost overrun provision won’t be enough to get me to support the tunnel project: it’s a bad project and Surface/Transit/I-5 is a much better option. Hell, the shit rebuild option is a much better option, at least I get to keep my on and off ramps. But repealing that provision would give some certainty to the process and would mean that for once in God knows how long the state isn’t actively trying to fuck Seattle up. It would make it more likely that city voters let the tunnel go through.

And yes, I know: Voters rejected a stadium and we got stadiums. Voters rejected a tunnel and we got a much bigger tunnel. But I wouldn’t count on that if you’re a supporter of the tunnel. The difference between those and this vote is that there wasn’t significant opposition to those things among elected officials. The only elected official who really opposed the stadiums, Maggi Fimia, got King County off the hook for cost overruns (at least for Safeco) despite most of the rest of county government supporting it. Imagine what you can expect when McGinn will veto any tunnel provision and has shown an ability to get anything that overrides his veto on the ballot.

Finally, this should give you a reason to confront the people who keep saying that the overrun provision is meaningless (while, oddly, not wanting it repealed). I know you don’t share that view, but it’s pretty common.

While this isn’t what you want to spend your time in the special session on, you’ve been given a time crunch by Judge Laura Gene Middaugh. And, of course, you’ve been given a time crunch by the Seattle voters (myself included) who signed the ballot measure. Please make the best of it.

Love,

Carl Ballard