– Platinum!
– Some inclines are like that.
– Last week’s Parks and Recreation had me in stitches with what Tom calls foods. I’m so glad this exists.
– Will someone please run against Scott Brown?
– It’s nice to know that there is a bridge too far for racist Republicanism. Although, it’s true Barbour wasn’t going to be president anyway.
– Solar panels in roads?! Somebody get on this in America. (h/t)
– As I mentioned last week, I’m getting more involved with Sensible Washington and the I-1149 campaign. My main focus has been on making sure that Sensible Washington gets enough signatures to make the November ballot. With an all-volunteer effort, this is a massive organizational task, so I’ve been helping build some high-tech tools to make it happen. One of the main differences between last year and this year has been a larger base of volunteers, especially in the parts of the state where drug law reform hasn’t been as popular. If any of you want to help us get on the ballot, please sign up at the website.
– With the likely veto of the medical marijuana bill, the Cannabis Defense Coalition is welcoming Steph Sherer, the Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access, to provide training for dispensary operators and cooperative grow members who could potentially end up being raided over the next few weeks. There will be sessions in Seattle, Spokane, and Ellensburg. Governor Gregoire could obviously make all of this moot by just signing the bill that made it through the legislature, but the public safety of Washington residents apparently doesn’t trump her desire to serve in the Obama Administration.
Please join us tonight for an evening of electoral politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but feel free to join some of us for an earlier dinner.
Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 223 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.
There are a group of state, King County people and Seattle City Council people who insist that the cost overrun provision on the tunnel is meaningless. They stand in stark contrast with Mayor McGinn, and most of the non-Seattle legislators who support the cost overruns provision. And they keep getting angrier and angrier at McGinn for keeping his campaign promise to oppose the cost overrun provision. They think (perhaps with reason) that it’s an excuse to go back on his saying he wouldn’t oppose the tunnel itself.
But don’t believe Governor Gregoire, Exec Constantine, or any legislator or City Council member who says that Seattle won’t be on the hook for cost overruns while they keep acting like Seattle will be on the hook for those cost overruns. The state, the county especially, but also the city council all have had the opportunity to call McGinn’s bluff and instead have insisted on poisoning the well. This may be good politics, but if they want the project to go forward without the mayor trying to block it, it’s not in the interest of their policy.
A quick recap: a few weeks before the mayoral election, the city council passed an ordinance that McGinn felt (or said at the time he felt) hemmed Seattle into the tunnel option. As such, he announced that since he couldn’t stop the tunnel he would still oppose the provisions that put Seattle on the hook for cost overruns. In this environment, McGinn went on basically doing what he said he would do until Richard Conlin illegally signed the draft Environmental Impact Statement. From that point on, McGinn took a much harder line, including vetoing a tunnel ordinance, and supporting initiatives to put the tunnel itself to a vote. Still, publicly, his position throughout has been that if the city doesn’t have to pay cost overruns, he’ll get out of the way. The state has lied to Seattle about the project repeatedly.
And magically the tenor of the debate has already changed from “of course, Seattle has to pay cost overruns, they get this awesome tunnel!” to “of course, the city won’t have to pay for cost overruns, what would possibly give you that idea?” Still, many people outside of Seattle are taking the first tack, and there haven’t been any laws changed about it since everyone was saying the first part. So, despite assurances from the state, it’s tough to believe that they won’t put “Seattle area property owners” on the hook for cost overruns.
Of course Washington State and King County could do things to assure Seattle that they won’t have to pay cost overruns. The most obvious, is the state could repeal the cost overrun provision, and commit to paying for cost over runs, just like every other state highway project. If King County is as sure as Dow and others say they are that the state is picking up the tab, they could easily work out an agreement with the city to take over any cost overruns that the state imposes on “Seattle area property owners.” If the county people don’t trust McGinn, they could structure the deal in a way that says if Seattle challenges the tunnel, they are back on the hook for cost overruns, so that the tunnel can go forward.
Until the state or the county do something like this, they may believe that Seattle won’t pay cost overruns, but they’re not betting with their own money.
But who cares, right? I mean if there are cost overruns, someone is paying for them? Why does it matter if it’s Seattle? With or without the City Council, McGinn is going to get a proposal on the ballot (and we’ve seen his ability to get the signatures to put things on the ballot without the City Council) to put light rail around the city. It’ll be a much better plan if there isn’t a gigantic question mark in the budget from the state. Simply, Washington should pay for its highways with gas tax money, not local property taxes: Seattle has a better use for the local property tax money.
Now, maybe it is good politics to oppose McGinn. To say he’s just being intransigent or a flipflopper, or whatever. But when the cost overruns do come, when the traffic from taking away exits and onramps and adding tolls comes, when Seattle goes into the red to pay for a shitty road, when we’re still tethered to cars with gas $5, $6, $7 a gallon, it won’t be McGinn’s fault.
Between Donald Trump’s birther nonsense (which was the top story on Anderson Cooper tonight for some reason) and that damn wedding, I’m not watching cable news until next week. Someone send me an email if Gaddafi finally gets killed by one of his sons.
When it comes to baseball, I’m not much of a traditionalist. Our good friend, N in Seattle, most certainly is. So I’ve been curious to hear his thoughts on the proposed playoff expansion. I might be wrong, but I’m betting he hates it even more than Tim Lincecum. That said, I think I have a proposal that he’ll hate even more than that, but it would be a much more exciting playoff format than anything I’ve heard proposed before.
The two main complaints that I’ve seen about expanding the playoffs by two teams is that it will extend the season even more, and it will give the division winners too much time to rest up while the wild cards battle it out. This idea solves both of those problems AND it adds two more teams to the mix. Here’s how it works:
Six teams in each league make the playoffs. The three division winners and the three teams with the next best records are all seeded by record (so if a team wins a division with a terrible record, like the Seahawks did this year in the NFL, they’ll still make the playoffs, but as the 6 seed). They then play 9 games in 11 days, 3 each against a different playoff team:
Seed 1 plays: 4, 5, @6
Seed 2 plays: @5, 6, 3
Seed 3 plays: 6, 4, @2
Seed 4 plays: @1, @3, 5
Seed 5 plays: 2, @1, @4
Seed 6 plays: @3, @2, 1
The higher seeded team in each match-up plays at home. After the 9 games, the two teams with the best record will move on to play in the LCS and the rest of the playoffs will continue as it always has. If there’s a tie in the standings at the end of 9 games, the tie-breaker should probably be run differential, which could make for some interesting strategies in some late games.
I’m now ducking…
UPDATE: I’m putting way too much thought into this, but I’ve updated the original schedule so that even the 1 and 2 seed will have to play some road playoff games and the 5 and 6 seed get home games. The top three seeds would get 6 home, 3 away. Wild cards get 3 home, 6 away. Still waiting for that call from Bud Selig…
– Oh my:
Pajamas Media’s resident fashion-plate and bow-tie adorned dildo brings us his latest installment in the wingnut myth that Obama Is a Muslim intent on imposing sharia law in the United States. Kimball’s editors — no doubt concerned that the typical Pajamas Media lip-moving reader rarely makes it past the headline — pack everything into the post title: “Why It’s OK for the U.S. Govt. to Burn Bibles But Condemn Burning the Koran.”
– The tunnel is a stupid project (also Pete Holems is a coward).
– What Booman said.
Update [Darryl]
– I was going to write about Rick Perlstein’s feature in this month’s Mother Jones titled “Inside the GOP’s Fact-Free Nation. From Nixon’s plumbers to James O’Keefe’s video smears: How political lying became normal”, but will offer it as a link here instead. The article is an interesting history of the modern political lie in American politics.
Last week’s contest was won by waguy. It was Cheney, WA, where hopefully lots of Eastern Washington University students are working to get I-1149 on the ballot.
This week’s location is related to something in the news from this past month. Good luck and Happy Easter!
1 Timothy 5:23
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.
Discuss.
Young Turks: Obama v. some reporter.
Garfunkel and Oats: Weed Card:
EARTH DAY 2011:
Newsy: G.O.P. struggles to find a candidate for POTUS.
Laura Flanders: Demonizing taxes and heightening inequality.
Young Turks: Sarah Palin’s disapproval is 61%. Oh…that’s in Alaska!
Seriously Trumped Up:
The “Don’t say Gay” bill introduced in Tennessee.
South Carolina teabaggers speak up:
Cenk: Boehner appoints high-priced lawyer ($520 per HOUR) to defend DOMA.
Nutcase Pastor Terry Jones accidentally fires his gun after meeting with Imam (via Crooks and Liars).
Apple Tracks:
TYT Network: Glenn Beck’s corn cow conspiracy.
White House: West Wing Week.
“Family Values” Sen. John Ensign Resigns:
Young Turks: The James O’Keefe “music video”.
Pap on FAUX News crushes opponent on “fair tax” issue.
ONN week in review: 268 feral cats removed from U.N Headquarters.
Cenk: Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) making outrageous statements about his state’s health care.
Maddow: The idiotic Bush color coded alert system is no more. Kiss your Terror Rainbow goodbye!
U.S. Budget:
Young Turks: Former Gov. Gary Johnson says end child labor laws.
Thom: Atlas Shrugged.
Laura Flanders: Another bad effect of the Citizens United decision:
Young Turks: The Glenn Beck comedy show.
Teabaggers get excited some times (via Crooks and Liars).
Newsy: Gov. Brewer vetoes birfer bill.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
The Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) has been a strong voice in the progressive activist community in the Northwest for over seven years. One of their early projects was a set of tools for progressive bloggers that enabled them to connect, share ideas and information, and disseminate their work. In past years, they have put together a number of influential workshops that brought bloggers together and put bloggers in touch with politicians (I’ve attended a number of them). NPI has also been a strong, consistent voice against Tim “Biggest Lie of my Life” Eyman’s abuse of the initiative process in Washington.
On Thursday, April 28th, NPI is holding its Spring Fundraising Gala at the Community Center at Mercer View, 82346 SE 24th Street on Mercer Island (map). The reception begins at 6:30 PM and the main program begins at 7:15 PM.
This is your chance to hang out with other folks in the progressive community over a buffet dinner. There will be music by Don Mock. Featured speakers are Rep. Jay Inslee, State Rep. Reuven Carlyle, Timothy Ford, Peter Steinbrueck, and Scott Macklin. And Bob Ferguson will be the Master of Ceremonies.
You can find information about tickets and whatnot on the NPI web page.
In my post on I-1053, I wrote, “I’m not a fan of the initiative process, but I think we do need to respect the will of the people.” This post will expand on that a little. Initiatives are simply a tool to make laws. We shouldn’t treat them as anything more or less.
The biggest problem is that they are a blunt tool. The legislative process has hearings and amendments. Better (or worse) ideas make it into the final product. With initiatives, the final outcome is the same one people were collecting signatures on months and months prior. It doesn’t take into concern the opposition. You don’t need to talk to attorneys to see if it passes constitutional muster, or look into other ways of doing something. It is all or nothing.
And this all or nothing approach tends to hamper debate. If an initiative passes, then it’s the will of the people. This despite the fact that the people didn’t get any alternatives. Their will was based on if they approved the language of the initiative or not, not on what their most preferred alternative might have been. That has real value, and should be respected, but we should also keep it in perspective. And when an initiative fails, it often kills momentum for whatever was being worked for, like the income tax (although, I’m not sure how much momentum it actually had, and oddly it hasn’t done much about liquor privatization).
Another problem is the influence of money. Most of these Eyman initiatives in recent years have got on the ballot with the financing largely of one man. Of course, most normal people can’t afford to do that. And when they do get on the ballot, even political junkies like me get sick of seeing all the ads and getting mailings. Money does play too large a role in the initiative process. Still, money also plays too large a role in the legislative process. The rich and powerful will use their power in the crafting of laws, no matter how we make those laws.
Because of all this money, often the more grassroots voices the initiative process was envisioned to give a voice get shouted out. It’s tougher for grassroots signature gathering efforts to get a foothold amid the paid signature gathering. It’s tougher for the opposition to raise the money to compete with some of the corporate campaigns we’ve seen recently.
Still, even for all the faults in the process, people still do get to vote on specific issues, and that is rather remarkable. So, how do we judge an initiative? The same way we’d judge any law: who wins, who loses, who it helps, and who it hurts.
– Speculation probably does play a role in high gas prices. But the fact that it’s a finite resource that we’re using more and more of probably has more to do with it.
– Birtherism qua birtherism is really, really dumb, but as always Shakesville has an interesting take.
– I didn’t realize people vote straight ticket more often either, but I guess it makes sense as the line between Democrats and Republicans has sharpened.
– I’m amazed we didn’t do this already.
– The Seahawks’ schedule looks tough. Still, as we learned last year, you don’t have to have anything as fancy as a winning record to make the playoffs.
Oh look, here’s a press release from Representative Katrina Asay. Enjoy.
Last fall, voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 1053 (I-1053), which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve tax increases. Voters in the 30th Legislative District approved I-1053 by more than 66 percent.
Yes. I think it was a mistake. Did voters realize what would be cut if the legislature passed a no new taxes budget? Did they make a guess about the revenue forecasts that have come in since then? Would they vote for the kinds of cuts that Republicans (and too many Democrats) want if those cuts were on the ballot? I’m not a fan of the initiative process, but I think we do need to respect the will of the people. However, I don’t think we can divine the will of the people about this budget by any Tim Eyman initiative. And I certainly don’t think we can figure out the will of the people with regard to local tax revenues.
Voters have approved the tax constraints found in I-1053 several times, most recently with Initiative 960, which was thrown out by the majority party last year. This allowed the majority party to increase taxes with a simple majority vote, or 50 plus one. In no mood to be taxed even more in this battered economy, voters in November quickly repealed a host of tax increases put in place by the majority party in the 2010 legislative session.
I know what Rep. Asay means, but that first sentence seems to imply that I-960 happened after 1053. Also, the will of the people is Democratic control of both houses of the legislature. Has been for a decade. Yet, oddly I don’t see Republican press releases demanding whatever Democrats want in the legislature.
That’s why I was so disappointed when majority Democrats in the House passed an amended version of Senate Bill 5457, the so-called “congestion relief bill.” Despite the catchy title, I voted against this bill because, as it was changed in the House, it does an end-around the voter-approved two-thirds vote requirement to increase taxes.
1053 didn’t say anything about counties or municipalities. We’re now divining the will of the voters based on things they didn’t vote for or against. That simply wasn’t on the ballot. In fact, King County was pretty close to evenly split. I’d bet Seattle and some suburban cities opposed it. Does that mean that their city councils should have majority rule like the framers of the state constitution envisioned?
Senate Bill 5457, as amended, would authorize a simple majority of King County Council members to impose up to an additional $20 in annual car-tab tax to help maintain Metro transit service. From all reports, the King County executive, once the bill is signed into law, will ask for the full amount of the tax. This would raise an estimated $25.5 million for each of the two years the tax will be in place.
Awesome. As a King County resident and a car owner, I’ll gladly pay my share. If enough people don’t like it they can either try to block it at the ballot like many of the state taxes last year, or if they don’t like it but not enough to do that, they can vote out the people who agree to the taxes. Democracy. Awesome.
What makes Senate Bill 5457 so offensive to me is that while the voters approved I-1053 to ensure any tax increase would be required to receive a two-thirds supermajority vote to be approved, the measure violates the will of the people by allowing a simple majority on the King County Council to approve the additional tax.
Again, NOBODY VOTED ON IF KING COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A 2/3 MAJORITY TO PASS ANYTHING. It wasn’t on the ballot. You can’t call the will of the people on an at best tangentially related question. This is crazy.
I see this as a way for the majority party to raise the ante when it comes to how many shenanigans voters will put up with when it comes to how new and increased taxes are approved. I feel as though they are basically telling citizens that while voters clearly and unequivocally directed the Legislature to have a supermajority consensus to increase taxes; they can snub that directive with a simple majority vote of legislators. Now, we are faced with a bill that could allow local governments to skirt the newly-approved mandate from last fall.
Local governments aren’t skirting anything. The mandates were to the legislature. And they were dumb. But even if they were the most sensible policy ever, they have nothing to do with King County.
If there is a good case to be made for higher taxes, let those who are asking for them convince others to support the idea. It’s that simple.
You mean like a majority of the King County Council, the King County Executive, enough voters not to sign a county wide referendum or initiative on that, or if there is a referendum to vote on it? You mean convince those people? Because there are already plenty of checks and balances in the system.
Additionally, and not to be lost in this debate, is that voters approved Initiative 695 specifically to ensure car tabs would cost no more than $30. Whether you like the idea or not, it’s what the people of this state approved. However, each year the Legislature has offered local governments the opportunity to add $20 here and there, weight fees and now this. Senate Bill 5457 is another example of why voters again decided to put such strict standards in place to raise taxes.
695 was ruled unconstitutional. So basically, we have to uphold the will of the people to support one unconstitutional thing, possibly another unconstitutional thing (the previous 2/3 rules have all been on standing, not on the merits). Also, 695 failed in King County. So by this logic, the will of the people is that they have higher car tabs. Why do you hate the imagined will of the people based on something that they didn’t really vote on, Katrina Asay?
This bill is a bad deal for taxpayers and breaks faith with voters. Because the House amended a Senate bill, it must now go back for the Senate to approve or reject the change. For all of our sakes, I can only hope the bill is set aside. It’s the right thing to do to maintain the integrity and spirit of I-1053.
It gives the voters plenty of say. As does every question before a legislative body in Washington. And it helps Metro get through tough fucking times.
HA has been experiencing server difficulties for, what…two weeks now?
The ISP has pinned the blame on a rogue router. They replaced it this afternoon. So no more problems, eh?
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!