HorsesAss.Org

On Friday the P-I reported that the University of Washington has stopped accepting transfers from community colleges due to over-enrollment. [No more transfers to UW]

Let’s get straight to the point: we’re not spending enough money on higher education!

And if we don’t fix this, our economy is eventually going to go to hell in a hand basket.

Cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and even rust-belt poster-child Pittsburgh, survived the collapse of their manufacturing industries — and prospered — due largely to the influx of talent attracted to their prestigious colleges and universities. The best and the brightest don’t just grab their degrees and leave; many settle in their adopted cities, creating new businesses and industries, or attracting existing ones to the growing pool of qualified workers.

My question is, which schools are going to be the economic engines for Washington, when we won’t even spend the money to educate our own children, let alone attract talent from out-of-state?

I moved to Seattle as an adult about 12 years ago, so I don’t have the same provincial pride in local institutions as most of you natives. And I’m not ashamed to admit that from my snobbish, east coast, elitist perspective there is not a single undergraduate program in the state that I could brag to family about my daughter attending.

Or rather, I am ashamed to admit this, because I’m a Washingtonian now, and I’m embarrassed to see my neighbors talk about how hard it is to get into the UW — like it’s some kind of west coast Harvard — when in fact increased admissions competition is due to declining funding not rising academic standards.

I grew up outside Philadelphia within 20 minutes of 4 schools — Haverford, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr and the University of Pennsylvania — where on its own, 1450 on your SATs and an A average would elicit a collective yawn from the admissions office. You show me the Washington state equivalent.

Now you can dismiss this as academic snobbery (and as President Bush proves, you can get a crappy education anywhere.) But show me a parent who wouldn’t want their children to gain all the advantages of an Ivy League education?

For whatever historical reasons, Washington is never going to have that kind of private college infrastructure. So we have to pick up the slack with our public university system.

Don’t get me wrong, the UW is a good state university… but it is only that.

And it is not going to get any better unless we fund it properly. That doesn’t simply mean more tax dollars. We also need to build the kind of multi-billion dollar private endowment that all the best schools rely on. And we need to move away from subsidizing all students equally, towards a means-tested system where tuition approaches market prices, and students receive generous financial aid based on need.

Either that, or we can continue exporting our best and brightest out-of-state.

We all know that Tim Eyman can be pretty damn revolting, but are taxpayers?

According to a recent survey conducted for the City of Renton… no.

As reported this week in the King County Journal (“Renton survey: Majority willing to pay more in property taxes“) a survey of 400 residents found broad support for maintaining public services at current levels. 63% responded that their local taxes were well spent, with only 24% saying they were not.

When informed that maintaining city services and facilities would require a levy increase of 1% (about $10 per year on average) 41% supported a 1% increase, while 15% supported increasing by more than 1%. Only 11% responded that they wanted lower taxes.

That’s 56% for higher taxes, 11% for lower.

What does all this mean? Well first of all, it apparently says that Renton is a well-run city.

But it also tells you that despite years of fomenting an anti-government tax revolt, Eyman’s claims of broad support for his tax-cutting agenda are groundless. Taxpayers are smart consumers, and except for a minority of ideologues, they are willing to pay for value when they see it.

There is no question that not all local governments are as efficient and responsive as the City of Renton. But that’s all the more reason to address these local problems locally rather than through Eyman’s ridiculously over-simplified statewide initiatives that seek to punish all governments, even those already doing a good job… especially those already doing a good job.

If Eyman somehow manages to get next year’s “Son of I-864” onto the ballot, he will be asking voters statewide to tell Renton voters that they can’t have the level of local services they want, unless they can manage a 60% supermajority to pass an excess levy.

That’s not just undemocratic. It’s just plain stupid.

The strategy for defeating I-892 (Slots for Tots) is to educate voters with truth: it massively expands gambling by legalizing slot machines in 4000 bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys, scattered through nearly every community in the state. If voters understand this very simple fact, the majority will vote against it.

Of course, that’s not the only reason to vote against I-892. Eileen Yoshina raises another important issue in today’s Olympian, that deserves to be talked about even if it isn’t the strongest political message. [Eyman’s life would be different as an American Indian]

Anybody can look at I-892’s motto “Just Treat Us the Same,” or read Eyman’s statements and understand the subtle racist appeal. Tim is clearly trying to make this an us-versus-them debate.

But if you were down there at the Secretary of State’s office when he first announced this initiative, and heard the tone in his voice as he delivered his statement before the cameras, there was really nothing subtle about it. This was a calculated, cynical and offensive appeal to voters’ basest instincts.

“Just Treat Us the Same” is not an accidental piece of rhetoric. Tim may not intend to inflame racial tensions, but he clearly doesn’t seem to mind if that is the unintended result.

Perhaps if Collin Levey spent a little less time reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and a little more time watching TV, she’d be better informed.

Oh, I’m not suggesting she tune in “Who Wants to Marry an Apprentice Survivor,” or whatever the latest hit reality show is (although that would probably still be more informative than the WSJ editorial page.) But if she was planning to write on federal forest management policies, she might have benefited from KCTS’s Tuesday airing of the NOVA episode “Fire Wars,” which chronicles the devastating 2000 forest fire season, and explains how a century of misguided fire suppression policy led to the monster fires we see today.

But no, just like the Bush administration, she prefers to base her opinions on political polemic rather than science. [It takes a tree-hugger to raze a forest]

So for Collin, the real culprit is the hoard of “downy youngsters with laptops chaining themselves to old-growth trees.” She finds this image so amusing she mentions it three times, and I admit it might have a satirical impact with readers if the image it parodied actually had any currency.

I’m an avid news-hound, and while I don’t doubt that somewhere in this great nation an idealistic, young environmentalist is protesting old-growth logging, I don’t recall a recent news story involving chains and laptops. (At least not related to forestry.)

I’m particularly leery of Collin’s tales of summer-camp-like tree sitting outings, with campers emailing home personal hygiene reports. It’s not the lack of showers that makes me suspicious — that’s consistent with my own overnight camp experience. It’s her obsession with laptops.

First of all, it can be hard enough configuring a WIFI network to extend 60 feet from the den to the living-room, let alone hundreds of miles deep into roadless, virgin forest. So it’s not like these purported young activists are passing the days browsing the internet.

Second, the average laptop is lucky to get 2 to 3 hours per charge, so unless these old growth stands happen to be strategically located near power outlets, I doubt these laptops are good for much more than protecting your lap from angry squirrels. In fact, harkening back to my own summer camp days, the only laptop I remember is that of a particularly odd counselor who always seemed a bit too fond of the younger boys.

I’m not saying Collin made this anecdote up; I’m sure she based it on something or other she read somewhere… before completely blowing it out of proportion. But as I’m too ethically rigid (i.e. cheap) to send a dime to the WSJ for the privilege of reading their editorial page slanders, I don’t usually have access to her primary source material.

In any case… there never is much subtext to Collin’s arguments, and this column struts the usual rhetorical cahones, branding Bill Clinton’s now-defunct road building ban “a giveaway.” A giveaway to whom? The American public who owns the national forests?

Calling it a “giveaway” implies that road building through virgin timber is somehow the natural state of affairs, but we’re talking about our national forests, not the interstate highway system. This isn’t the I-5 corridor, it’s the last 10% of old growth forest that once symbolized the Evergreen State.

Saving for future generations the few remaining patches of unspoiled wilderness is not a giveaway. A giveaway is subsidizing the logging industry by spending taxpayer dollars to build roads through virgin timber that would otherwise be uneconomical to cut.

By measuring forests in “board feet”, and attacking John Kerry for “sidling up to hunting and sportsmen groups,” it is clear that Collins idea of “more-localized accountability for the management of public lands” envisions our national forests as little more than the unfinished two-by-four section of Home Depot.

I understand Collin’s partisan zeal to reduce this issue to a fight between Democrats and the rest of us, but in so doing she dumbs down a complex debate that would best be decided by forestry experts rather than politicians, columnists and bloggers. It is convenient for her to blame the recent spate of fires on “hands-off” forestry policy, but she’s clearly spent little if any effort researching the issue.

If Collin really wants to understand the scientific and historical context of todays forestry practices, she should set her VCR for Saturday, July 17 at 2:00 AM, when KCTS rebroadcasts “Fire Wars.”

But I doubt she’s interested. See, the problem with science is that — unlike the WSJ editorial page — it doesn’t always tell you what you want to hear.

Well that was fun. The final results are in:

Do you think non-tribal casinos in Washington should be allowed to operate slot machines?
Yes: 37.4%
No: 47.0%
Don’t know: 1.8%
Don’t care: 13.7%
Total Votes: 4377

I take back everything I said about online polls being bogus. This poll was clearly a scientific and accurate representation of public opinion.

Wow… for much of the morning the P-I’s bogus online poll regarding I-892 was hovering around 43% yes, 37% no. Then we started getting the word out, and the numbers started to change. As of a couple minutes ago it is now 40.9% yes and 42.2% no!

Let’s push the yes vote under 40%! Vote early, vote late… vote often!

Speaking of today’s Seattle P-I, their website is in the midst of one of those bogus internet polls, this one asking “Do you think non-tribal casinos in Washington should be allowed to operate slot machines?”

As of this writing, a plurality of votes are in favor, 44% to 37%. But the results might be different if the question was asked of local bars, bowling alleys and restaurants, instead of just casinos.

The results might also be different if my loyal readers would pass the word along to go to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ and vote no. (Of course you don’t want to delete the cookies Poll1454 and Poll1454State and vote repeatedly. That would be dishonest.)

I know rigging the vote on an online poll is, well… sophomoric. But then, so am I.

What a whiner. Tim Eyman emailed his list with one of his “media double-standards” rants. Apparently Tim is a little pissed that his expensive, paid-signature-gathering campaigns have received more bad press than some of the other expensive, paid-signature-gathering campaigns.

So when billionaires Bill Gates, Bill Gates Sr, Nicholas Hanauer, and the teachers’ union “buy their way on the ballot” with anti-taxpayer Initiative 884, the press looks the other way. But when Washington-based businesses financially support pro-taxpayer I-892, the press throws a hypocritical hissyfit.

Oh. You mean “Washington-based businesses” like, say… The Great Canadian Gaming Corporation?

Local subsidiaries of British Columbia-based Great Canadian Gaming Corp., which owns four Washington casinos and says it has expansion plans, have now poured $160,000 in cash and loans into the apparently successful effort to get I-892 onto the ballot.

That’s from today’s Seattle P-I, where Neil Modie lays out the money being raised for and against I-892 (“Tribes battle Eyman initiative to legalize slot machines in state.”) So let’s just compare Great Canadian with evil billionaire Bill Gates for a moment.

If I-892 passes, Great Canadian stands to suck an additional $20 million a year out of state and across the border, whereas if I-884 passes, Bill Gates, who has helped bring billions of dollars of wealth into our state, will pay a little extra for whatever it is evil billionaires buy.

And whatever you think of Microsoft’s monopolistic practices, at least Gates and his company aren’t currently facing allegations of loansharking, prostitution, profit skimming, financial fraud, and bribery… unlike Great Canadian.

See… I have a suggestion Tim: perhaps the reason your initiatives attract more criticism than some of the others, is that your initiatives clearly suck.

And perhaps the reason the media pays a little more attention to I-892’s contributions is that over a third of the money has come from out-of-state and foreign corporations, and your top three contributors have all been the subject of various criminal and civil investigations. Notice that the media has not leveled a single attack against contributors to I-864, which mostly consist of the average joes you abandoned to focus on the more remunerative I-892 campaign.

But for consistency sake, let me just reiterate again my position. I believe the shift towards high-cost professional initiative campaigns that rely predominately — if not solely — on paid signature gatherers is disastrous to our democracy. And for the record, I did not sign a single initiative this year.

Tim can whine all he wants, but he, his initiatives, and his backers deserve all the media scrutiny they get… and more so. Tim has been instrumental in transforming “direct” democracy into “corporate” democracy, in which only wealthy special interests have the resources to use the initiative process to get their pet legislation onto the ballot.

He has no reason to complain if wealthy special interests he disagrees with simply follow his lead.

You know, Tim Eyman could have attempted to point towards today’s article in the Bremerton Sun as a moral victory. [Failed I-864 will still affect city]

The story outlines how some city and county governments are working on “cost-of-government” studies to help develop clearer spending priorities in the wake of the budget scare over I-864 (Cruel and Stupid 25% Tax Cut.)

Instead of claiming credit (deserved or not) for promoting accountability, Tim is quoted dismissively repeating his standard “fat and happy” line. He then emailed a copy of the article to his list (once again in violation of copyright laws) advising them not to get their hopes up, and promising a more draconian sequel. (A 35% tax cut next year?)

Which raises the question as to what is his true agenda? Is it really to protect taxpayers, as he claims, or is it merely to perpetually run initiatives?

Tim is clearly a libertarian. But apparently his radical anti-government agenda is only surpassed by his own personal self-interest.

Tim is in the initiative business, and a moral victory is useless if it doesn’t put money in the bank. If voters see public officials as responsive and accountable, then contributions will dry up, and Tim will be out of a job.

In fact, Tim can’t afford to bask in any victories, moral or otherwise. What Karl Marx wrote of the bourgeoisie could well be applied to Tim’s perpetual revolution… what it produces above all is its own gravediggers.

The point is, there is no end game for Tim, no scenario in which he could ever claim victory, because that would undermine support for next year’s professional campaign. Defeat for Tim is not losing at the polls or failing to qualify for the ballot… it would be to find himself back hawking novelty watches again.

The Seattle P-I’s business columnist, Bill Virgin, voices a perspective we haven’t heard too much from during the debate over I-892 (Slots for Tots.) [Gambling craze not a good bet for states]

States are making a big mistake counting on taxes on gambling to provide a stable source of revenues. And Bill points out that even as the rest of the nation has rushed to explode gambling, Nevada has been working diligently to diversify their economy.

Tim Eyman is pitching I-892 as something for nothing, a $400 million tax cut that won’t cut services. His “revenue neutral” claim is a lie, of course, that shows an understanding of economics as shallow as his ethics. It also ignores the enormous cost to state and local governments of dealing with gambling’s problems. Not to mention the incalculable toll in human misery.

But all that aside, I-892 suggests we’re sitting on top of an untapped reservoir of tax revenues, and that the more we expand gambling the less we’ll have to rely on taxpayers to fund essential government services.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the market approaches saturation, revenues will decline with margins, and many casinos will find themselves hard pressed to turn a profit. You can be sure that with billions of dollars in revenues and thousands of employees, casino operators will turn towards the Legislature for tax breaks to keep them in business.

Even now, one of the arguments made to legalize slot machines is that non-tribal operators can’t compete with the tribal casinos. It is not a stretch to suggest that in the near future, further demands will be made to subsidize an industry controlled by foreign and out of state interests, and which adds not a single dime of wealth to our economy.

I don’t always agree with Bill Virgin, but this one’s a no-brainer. Expanding gambling is not a good bet for Washington state.

As published in a number of papers today, the AP reports that the sales tax deduction plan currently before congress would only benefit a third of Washington residents, the vast majority from wealthy households. [Sales tax deduction plan ripped]

In Washington state, 34.7 percent of taxpayers itemized on their federal returns in 2001, the study said. Those numbers dropped to 29.9 percent of those who earned below $100,000, and 17.8 percent of those who earned below $50,000.

By contrast, more than 90 percent of tax filers with annual incomes over $200,000 itemized.

Figures, doesn’t it? George Nethercutt, who’s running against Patty Murray for the Senate, has made a big hoo-hah about sales tax deductibility (a concept which is supported by the entire state delegation, even if the specific bill that contains this measure is not.) But as usual, Republican tax cuts tend to be primarily tax cuts for the rich.

(Oh… and Nethercutt also doesn’t like to mention the fact that it expires after two-years. Naw, that doesn’t sound like a manufactured election year issue, does it?)

Anyway, nobody from WA is going to argue against sales tax deductibility… it’s in our own interests. But it completely misses the point.

The real solution is not to reinstate sales tax deductibility (eliminated by Ronald Reagan, by the way) but to bring Washington’s tax structure into the 21st Century (hell, I’d settle for the 20th) and implement an income tax.

Yeah I know, common wisdom is that the income tax is the third rail of Washington politics, but judging from the turnout at his Tax Reform Town Hall Meeting on Saturday, gubernatorial candidate Ron Sims has apparently touched it and lived. In fact, rumors are that polls show Sims steadily closing the gap on frontrunner Christine Gregoire in the weeks since he prominently made tax reform the central theme of his campaign.

Gregoire and Rossi maintain their dismissive attitude towards this issue at their own risk. I was impressed by Sims’ deft mixture of energetic populism with a genuine effort to build consensus by providing voters the tools to understand this very complex issue. (Take a look at the Tax Reform Calculator on his campaign website for an example of his measured approach.)

Talking to Sims, he seems to understand that any tax reform package must come before the people as either an initiative or a referendum. As Governor, his role would not be to impose a plan from on top, but to use his bully pulpit to build consensus from the ground up.

Whatever speculation one might make as to the political calculations that led Sims to embrace what most consultants would consider a losing issue, I am convinced that his decision is a display of faith… faith that voters will welcome a reasonable discussion on the issues, whatever the partisan rhetoric of reform opponents.

For example, depending on how one structured a tax reform package, we could actually generate the extra billion dollars I-884 wants to put towards funding education, without costing state taxpayers a single dime. Show me a voter who wouldn’t at least want to hear the details of such a win-win proposal, and I’ll show you… Tim Eyman.

In my ode to Phil Talmadge on his withdrawal from the race (“Talmadge’s withdrawal smarts“) I summed up the Sims campaign by saying “Ron is running on being a leader.”

This is exactly the kind of leadership I was talking about.

I just wanted to point you towards an excellent editorial in in today’s Tacoma News Tribune: “Irresponsible initiative meets deserved fate.”

Enough said.

As reported here last week (“Sign this petition or I’ll break your leg! I-892’s biggest backer accused of loansharking“) a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation investigative report revealed allegations of loansharking at casinos run by the Great Canadian Gaming Corporation.

Of course, as an upstanding corporate citizen whose only concern is the welfare of its patrons, Great Canadian immediately initiated a libel suit against the CBC and other parties.

A libel suit is the legal equivalent of Great Canadian’s house loansharks threatening to break a customer’s legs. (Excuse me… alleged legs.) It is an act of pure intimidation, intended to send a message to media outlets here and abroad to let this story sleep with the fishes, or face hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees in retribution.

This is a cowardly and mean-spirited assault on our First Amendment by a foreign corporation intent on dominating Washington’s gambling industry and unduly influencing our state’s elections. Great Canadian has already spent at least $128,000 financing I-892’s campaign to legalize slot machines — a small price considering the millions they’ve invested purchasing four of our state’s largest non-tribal casinos.

So it is no surprise that as the Gambling Commission reviews its licenses, and voters consider a measure that could eventually suck hundreds of millions of dollars north of the border, Great Canadian doesn’t want the public to know what kind of company is dealing the cards.

Great Canadian, its investors and executives have been accused of permitting or engaging in harassment, profit skimming, investment fraud, prostitution, bribery, and yes… loansharking. This is a company that at least on the surface appears intent on putting the “organized” into organized crime, and their make-you-an-offer-you-can’t-refuse approach to media relations doesn’t inspire much confidence to the contrary.

And so I challenge my friends in the media to join my little blog in standing up to this bully. Dive headlong into the mud hole; I promise you, it’s deeper than you think.

And if in the end Great Canadian comes out clean, well then, they’ll get the public exoneration they deserve. But if they come out stinking like warmed-over Moosehead, then voters deserve to know exactly what kind of company is financing I-892, and exactly who stands to gain the most from its passage.

In the same rhetorical breath that he announced his failure to qualify I-864 for the November ballot, Tim Eyman promised to come back next year with an even more severe property tax cut proposal. I assume his intention is to tighten the language so that it also impacts districts with levy lid lifts in effect. But I suppose he might even increase the size of the cut, following the pattern he set when I-722 morphed into I-747.

Would Tim be so boldly stupid as to propose a 50% property tax cut?

Probably not. But a 25% property tax cut is stupid enough, as is illustrated by the examples set forth today in the Olympian: “Our Views: Yelm, fire district work for resolution.”

The editorial points out the adverse impact on Yelm residents when Fire District 2 moved its full-time crew from within city limits to a location nearer the center of the district. Before the move, the average response time for Yelm (which accounts for 40 percent of the district’s emergency calls) was 5.8 minutes. It now takes an average of nine minutes to respond to call.

Response times are critical. Every minute counts when a fire ignites. Adding more than three minutes to the average fire call in Yelm is putting lives and property at greater risk.

The editorial lauds Yelm and fire district officials for working to find a resolution — a resolution that will almost surely require more funding. But this would have been impossible if I-864 had cut an additional 25% from the fire district’s budget.

Fire districts rely on local property taxes for 95% of their funding; as much as 90% of their general fund is spent on the salaries of firefighters and paramedics. Next year Tim will ask voters to cut fire service by at least 25%, and require a 60% supermajority for any future increases.

I understand if voters are angry and frustrated, particularly those from middle- and low-income households who have seen their tax burden rise, even as average state and local tax burden has fallen. (Do the math: that means businesses and the wealthy are paying less.)

But voters need to understand that when they vote to decrease local property taxes they are voting to decrease local services… essential services like firefighting and paramedics. It is not an exaggeration to say that in saving tax dollars, I-864 would surely have cost lives.

My hope is that Tim’s failure to generate sufficient support for I-864 is an indication that voters are starting to understand this equation.

I can’t let a Thursday slip by without commenting on Collin Levey’s latest column in the Seattle Times. [Brace for a race between producers and advocates]

Faithfully following the memo from her bosses at Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Inc., Collin uses John Kerry’s choice of John Edwards as his running mate as an opportunity to paint the presidential race as a contest between hard working businessmen who create our nation’s wealth (Bush-Cheney) and blood-sucking trial lawyers who enrich themselves at the expense of consumers (Kerry-Edwards.)

Yeah, nice try. Attacking trial lawyers didn’t work when Edwards ran for the Senate, it didn’t work in the primaries, and it won’t work in the general election. In fact, if I were running the right-wing media echo chamber, I’d be careful this tactic didn’t backfire, as an examination of the candidates’ resumes makes Edwards look quite a bit more productive than so-called “producers” like Bush and Cheney.

Collin writes that “George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s private-sector careers were as business leaders — Cheney at Halliburton and Bush at the Texas Rangers and smallish oil companies.”

Right.

Dick Cheney started his impressive climb up the corporate ladder as a low-level flak in the Nixon Whitehouse, where Donald Rumsfeld took him under his wing. When Rumsfeld became Ford’s chief of staff, he made Cheney one of his deputies. And when Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense in 1975, Cheney replaced him as chief of staff.

Cheney was downsized out of a job in 1976 when Jimmy Carter completed his hostile takeover, so like many other business leaders, he ran for Congress… and won. There he served until 1988 when Bush the 1st made him Secretary of Defense.

Another hostile takeover in 1992, this time by Bill Clinton, left Cheney jobless once again. And so with absolutely no private sector experience, a political science degree, and nothing but Washington insider credentials on his resume, he of course landed a job as Chairman and CEO of Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oil services and construction companies… and a major military contractor.

As for Bush, well, let’s just say that his only claim to being a “business leader” comes from leading those “smallish oil companies” straight down the toilet.

Bush, the son of a sitting Vice President, was given his stake in the Texas Rangers to help grease the wheels of an effort to secure public financing for a new stadium. After taxpayers agreed to foot the bill, the value of the team dramatically increased, and Bush cashed out, making millions.

As businessmen, the only wealth Bush and Cheney ever produced was millions of dollars of profits for themselves, by cashing in on their Washington connections.

Edwards on the other hand, is a self-made man in the proudest American tradition. The son of a mill worker, and the first in his family to attend college, he achieved wealth and prestige through hard work, determination, and talent. Nobody every gave him a leg up because of who he knew, or which man he called dad.

And finally, I hate to burst your bubble Collin, but law firms are businesses too. And there is no denying that Edwards was a leader in his business.

So to Collin and her right-wing overlords I say “bring it on.” If you want to make this campaign a debate over the candidates’ private sector resumes, I’ll start planning my November 2 victory party now.