HorsesAss.Org

Lawrence O’Donnell lays into Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) for being willing to shut down Government to defund Planned Parenthood (via Crooks and Liars).

Obama on the budget agreement:

Sam Seder: Bristol Palin’s big pay day from nonprofit teen pregnancy prevention charity.

Mark Fiore: Terrorist lock-up.

About Glenn Beck:

• Glenn Beck tries to explain (via Crooks and Liars).
• Jon channels Glenn (via Crooks and Liars).
• Young Turks: Why Glenn is leaving FAUX News.
• Newsy: Why Glenn Beck is transitioning off FAUX show.
• Lawrence O’Donnell: Glenn Beck will shed his last tear…
• Sam Seder: Glenn Beck goes away.
• Glenn Beck gets out-crazied on his own program.
• Bill Maher on Glenn Beck (via Huffington Post).
• Young Turks: The future for Glenn.

The difference between Liberal and Conservative brains:

Obama picks Debbie Wasserman Schultz to lead the DNC.

Thom: Hate speech and free speech.

ONN: Internet outage forces public into street to voice inane opinions.

Wisconsin Election Madness:

• Young Turks: Votes found in Wisconsin.
• Maddow: Gov. Walker does his part to reelect Obama (via Politics USA).

Thom: The Good, the Bad and the Very Very Ugly.

Sam Seder: What will happen when the Government shuts down?

Maddow: Criminally phoney elections?

Pap: What Monsanto chemicals are in your food?.

The Birfer Donald:

• Ann Telnaes: An April fool.
• NBC scrambles to fact-check The Donald (via Crooks and Liars).
• Tweety: Trump converts Republican nomination into a Reality TV show.

Ann Telnaes: Afghan protests spread after Koran burning.

Cenk with Con Job: GOP budget exposed by CBO.

Newsy: Mississippi Republicans think mixed race marriages should be illegal.

White House: West Wing Week.

Rep. Jim McDermott on FAUX News discussing budget compromise:

Cenk: Why I am a progressive.

Liberal Viewer: Using R-word is totally gay?.

Lawrence O’Donnell: Last word on GOP/Teabagger holding Planned Parenthood hostage.

Wimpish Pawlenty puts out an action thriller against Obama. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (via TalkingPointsMemo).

Maddow: Paul Ryan & GOP attack Medicare & raise debt?

Young Turks: Walker does cronyism.

ONN week in review: Obama cast national musical.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

In the debate about how the legislature should balance the budget* one of the main liberal arguments is that we should close the loopholes that have accumulated in the tax system over the years. At least have a look at what ones are and aren’t working any more. It makes sense, after all that what the legislature passed 10, 20, 30 years ago or more in better economic times may not make sense today when put against the tough budget reality. But don’t worry, Representative Ed Orcutt knows better. Not how to balance the budget, silly: what to call the loopholes.

As the Legislature contemplates how to deal with a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall, one of the more common phrases heard around the Capitol is “closing tax loopholes.” While this may seem admirable on the surface, a closer look reveals a complex economic system that can’t be oversimplified by catchy special interest sound bites.

Special interest = struggling families who have lost medical and dental care, and or schools.
Special interest ≠ out of state banks that pay millions of dollars less because of these loopholes.

For most, the term “loophole” conjures up images of shady characters in smoke-filled back rooms scheming for ways to buck the system. But here in Washington state, we don’t have “tax loopholes” we have tax incentives.

If you use a different word, it makes it OK.

Why is this clarification important? Because these tax incentives have been enacted via very deliberate legislative action.

No lobbyist has ever influenced any tax cut bill, you see. And any tax break that ever once made sense will forever make sense again.

In order to be passed into law, a tax incentive must be subjected to: a public hearing; amendment; a majority vote of committee members; and then subjected again to amendment and a 50-vote requirement to pass from the House floor. It then has to go through the same rigorous process in the Senate (with a 25-person vote requirement). If it passes both the House and Senate, it still must be signed into law by the governor. Often, these proposals receive far more than the 50 and 25 votes needed. So, it is a rigorous and difficult task for a bill to be passed and enacted.

The same process will also apply to any repeal (except it may also go to the voters or have to be 2/3 of the legislature). So, problem solved.

Furthermore, this process is done publicly with bill hearings announced in advance and testimony taken in public meetings. Anyone can now access any hearing via TVW webcast. There is no hiding. And lobbyists for the groups who are now calling for the repeal of these policies had every opportunity to testify against the proposals. Did they? Weren’t the bills still passed – and these incentives enacted – because of their benefit to our economy?

Well, our economy looks very different than it did when those loopholes passed. So it makes sense that we would see if they still make sense. We also enacted the social safety net to benefit our economy, not to mention to keep the most vulnerable safe. By the logic of the previous paragraph, we can’t dismantle that, since it had hearings and passed the legislature, etc.? And our schools have been funded by previous legislatures, and there’s even a clause about a paramount duty.

The fact is these incentives have been beneficial to workers, employers and communities throughout the state. Thousands of jobs with high wages and benefits have been created and many jobs in manufacturing have been saved. They worked because a lower tax rate brought businesses to Washington that would not have come otherwise.

Instead of actual facts to back this up, could you please give me an example you pulled out of your ass?

Which would you choose, a tax rate of 0.5 percent on $10 million or a 1.5 percent rate applied to $0? I choose the 0.5 percent rate as it creates jobs and generates revenue. The higher rate does not because many of those economic activities would gravitate toward more competitive states. That means the lower rate has actually protected or enhanced the funding for many of the programs that special interest groups are now trying to protect. Repeal of these incentives would leave employers with little option but to lay off more workers. Can we really afford that? Our efforts should be to create jobs, not destroy them.

If we rescind the loophole for banks, THERE WILL BE NO BANKS TO TAX IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!

Over the last few years, true loopholes have been examined and eliminated. The improper use of reseller certificates to get building materials tax free for personal use, and tax avoidance have both been thoughtfully – and rightfully – repealed.

It’s only a loophole if I don’t support it.

Proposals to end our current tax incentives are by definition tax increases. Voters clearly said ‘No!’ to that last fall, and with good reason. Any tax increase would lead to job losses in our state and further delay the rehiring of workers by any employer affected by such a tax increase.

Well to the extent that you can divine anything about closing loopholes from that, they said they wanted either 2/3 of the legislature to vote on it or to put it to the people. So, if enough of your colleagues support it, then it can pass. So vote to close loopholes and problem solved.

A repeal of these incentives would further hamper our economy’s recovery and devastate our state and household budgets. We need to get past the misleading rhetoric of impropriety and look for better ways to get our budget balanced and to get Washington working again.

By cutting Basic Health and education. QED!

[Read more…]

Washington state capitol grounds are filled with thousands of protesters demonstrating against spending cuts and corporate tax breaks. Seattle teacher’s union vice president Jonathan Knapp estimates 8,000 demonstrators, and the the Washington State Patrol estimates 7,000 people:

The rally is the largest of four days of boisterous demonstrations in Olympia over spending cuts lawmakers are considering to help close a looming $5 billion budget deficit.

Goldy’s there and sends in this amusing photo (to his employer). Here is another photo, and another from Goldy.

Not there? You can still make your voice heard. Take a few moments to contact your state Senator and Representatives.

Seriously…with $4.4 billion more being excised from a budget that has been cut to the bone and picked over, this is going to be painful. So speak up!

I’ll take a slightly less suspicious stance than Lee on the remarkable turn-around we saw yesterday in the Wisconsin Supreme court race.

People make mistakes. All the time.

The whole idea of canvassing under the scrutiny of public observers is to figure out the intentions of every single voter, and make sure the votes are counted correctly. Shit happens…tallies change. Yesterday we learned that, because of a data entry error in a Republican-leaning county, Prosser was shorted some 7,582 votes in his contest with Kloppenburg.

Do I believe it? Yes, I do.

Seriously…I believe a whole string of innocent human errors are a far more parsimonious explanation than systematic voter fraud, lying, deceit, ballot stuffing, etc. for the plethora of vote changes that have occurred over the last two days Yeah…I believe that—even when the conservative nut-cases come out ahead—it is true until concrete evidence shows elsewise.

So…to paraphrase the words of an overrated person with senile dementia who was once was propped up as “President,” “I’ll trust, but please verify.”

And sure…the most likely outcome of this election isn’t nearly as satisfying as we thought two days ago, but it really doesn’t change what I said on Wednesday:

So, who really wins…Workers or Walker? Given the closeness of this race, it will be hard for either side to make too much over the eventual winner. That said, the expectation that a incumbent should win such a race means that a Kloppenburg win, and maybe even a very close loss, provides modest evidence that Wisconsin voters have joined with their Milwaukee county brethren to give Gov. Walker a collective thumbs down.

If one recognizes the fact that Prosser dominated with a 2:1 margin over Kloppenburg in the four-way primary, only to have that margin cut down to a slim advantage in the general election…yeah, I can find solace in that as the outcome.

All that aside, check this out:

The Brookfield bombshell was the biggest – but hardly the only – change as counties across the state checked their election results Tuesday. Here’s a sample:

• In Winnebago County, officials now say Prosser received 20,701 votes to Kloppenburg’s 18,887. On Wednesday, The Associated Press – which gathers the votes for most of the media in Wisconsin – had 19,991 for Prosser to Kloppenburg’s 18,421.
• In Kenosha, Prosser picked up 33 votes in the Town of Randall and 27 votes in the Town of Bristol, and the canvass is still going on.
• In Waukesha County, Prosser also picked up 200 votes in New Berlin after a clerical error was discovered.
• In Grant County, Prosser lost 116 votes when officials completed their canvass Thursday. The count was off in part because the Town of Smelser incorrectly reported the count for paper ballots that voters cast after the regular ballots ran out, County Clerk Linda Gebhardt said. The town reported 294 votes for Prosser, but later corrected the figure to 194.

The list of changes rolled on in county after county…

Let me ask you. If these discrepancies were reported to advantage the (perceived) Democrat, what do you s’pose would happen?

Yeah…the Wingnut spin machine would go absolutely, fucking, out-of-their-gourd bonkers! They would go on a witch hunt against anyone and everyone who made “hostile” corrections to the vote tallies. They would launch a holy crusade against Democratic stronghold counties, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR, George Soros, Michael Fox, the Clintons and certain Teletubbies. We’d hear about roving bands of ballot-stuffers, mailbox dwellers, illegal alien voters, Black Panther intimidators, and Democrat-loving felons voters.

We’d hear references Dean Logan ad nauseum.

In other words, the apoplectic right-wing propagandists would do everything they could do to stir up negative emotions by undermining our system of elections. They would consider their victory so important that they would fabricate lies and hatred about our elections process. (You know…kind-of like Hitler would do.)

You ask how I can make such a claim—practically calling ’em traitors? Because that is what they did in 2004 in Washington state. And then, again, in 2008 in Minnesota. You know, like the 157 different “findings of fact” alleged by Coleman, of which, ohhh…all 157 were tossed out by the courts. The Coleman’s people (like Rossi’s) made the calculation that grasping for a win—even at the cost of damaging our democracy—was more important than truth and reality.

So I will maintain the dignified stance that this Wisconsin election is typical—clean, overall, but with a few errors along the way that can and will (rightfully) be corrected.

And the next time the Democrats squeak one out and some right-wing asshole starts trashing our Democracy and promoting doubts about our electoral system…I may have to shoot him in the fucking head.

Or her.

I haven’t been following the Wisconsin stuff as closely as my esteemed colleagues here, but WTF?

I linked to this story in last night’s post on Mexico, but what’s happening in Spokane is causing a lot head-scratching today:

Medical marijuana dispensaries in Spokane face federal prosecution if they do not end their operations immediately, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced Wednesday.

Federal authorities hope for voluntary compliance but are prepared “for quick and direct action against the operators of the stores,” according to a statement by Mike Ormsby, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Washington.

Federal authorities will target both the operators of the stores and the owners of the properties where the stores are located, he said.

The Obama Administration’s stated policy for states like Washington that have medical marijuana laws has been that U.S. Attorneys should only get involved in enforcing the federal marijuana prohibition if people aren’t following the state laws. So while Ormsby is technically following the directive, it’s the timing that’s curious. Our legislature is currently working to make the dispensaries legal, and Spokane isn’t the only city with dispensaries in limbo. In fact, most urban areas in Washington already have dispensaries that serve patients. So why Spokane? And why now?

What makes this even more curious is the fact that we have a looming government shutdown this week. And while much of the work of the Justice Department continues during a shutdown, those offices have to scale back their workload. In light of those circumstances, what in the hell was Ormsby thinking?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has a little slip-o-the-tongue (via Thinkprogress):

And we all know what he means by “score a victory for the Republican people.”

Dear Rep. Pence,

“No” means NO!

Love,
America

Goldy has the goods on the protest of the budget down in Olympia. This is a fast moving story, so you could do worse than to check out the We Are Washington blog. Their latest piece links to these videos. If anyone has other info, please leave it in the comments.

…Follow hashtag #wearewashington on Twitter for the latest

Mexican protesters took to the streets in more than 20 cities on Wednesday to protest President Felipe Calderon and his drug war. The impetus for these marches was the death of Juan Francisco Sicilia, 24. Sicilia is only one of the roughly 35,000 Mexicans who’ve been killed in the violence, but his death struck a chord with the nation because his father happened to be the famous poet and journalist Javier Sicilia. And fittingly, as the demonstrators marched, authorities in northern Mexico found another mass grave with about 60 bodies.

The most frustrating aspect of the carnage in Mexico is that it remains a direct consequence of American drug policies. Even Calderon’s predecessor, Vicente Fox, has been outspoken about this very simple fact, but being right about how to defeat Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations is still not acceptable discourse in Washington. The Obama Administration has only been marginally better than previous administrations (although that may stop being true soon), still foolishly believing that this is a problem that can be solved by law enforcement (nope), even while claiming that they’re trying a different approach.

The 35,000 deaths since Felipe Calderon launched his ill-fated drug crackdown aren’t just his fault, they’re also ours. American drug policy rewards Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations with the billions of dollars in easy profits that they then use to battle each other for an even greater piece of the pie. Every time a major player in the trade is arrested, dozens step up to take his place and the violence escalates. Yet to the head of the DEA, Michele Leonhart, this is somehow seen as winning:

“It may seem contradictory, but the unfortunate level of violence is a sign of success in the fight against drugs,” the DEA chief said.

The cartels “are like caged animals, attacking one another,” she added.

No, they’re not. And one has to have their head lodged really fucking far up their own ass to believe that. These are organizations that have so much money that they were able to launder their money directly through the U.S. banking system in order to buy airplanes. They’re not caged animals, they’re pretty goddamn free to do what they want. A lot freer than the Mexicans who took to the street today to protest against a gruesome quagmire that they have essentially no control over.

I just adored this photo essay by McGinn on Seattle’s values. Of course a lot of them are universal values, not unique to Seattle or to cities in general, but all in all wonderful.

Remember the anecdote about the college drop-out, DUI-collecting, son of a lobbyist and big donor who was appointed by Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) to head environmental and regulatory affairs in the state Department of Commerce for $81,500 a year?

He has been given a demotion in response to a “public uproar.”

But the Journal Sentinel gives the qualifications on the two other people who applied for the position that supervises 76 employees and oversees storage tank regulations and environmental cleanups:

The first, Oscar Herrera, is a former state cabinet secretary under Republican Gov. Scott McCallum with a doctoral degree and eight years’ experience overseeing the cleanup of petroleum-contaminated sites.

The second, Bernice Mattsson, is a professional engineer who served since 2003 in the post to which Deschane was appointed.

By contrast, Deschane has no college degree, little management experience and a couple of drunken-driving convictions. His father represents a trade group that gave more than $121,000 to Walker and his running mate.

Herrera and Mattsson didn’t get far in the process.

“Neither candidate was interviewed,” said agency spokesman Tony Hozeny.

Clearly, the last thing you need in such a position is someone with qualifications and experience.

And clearly, Walker considered that the single best qualification for the job was having a generous father who is a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Builders Association.

Nothing stinky here, folks. Just move along!

Okay…maybe there was some political payback, and maybe there was some conflict of interest in having the son of a Wisconsin Builders Association lobbyist overseeing regulators of storage tanks. But, whatever…I mean, demotion accomplished!

And by “demotion” we learn he will go…

…back to the Department of Regulation and Licensing and his $64,728-a-year job as bureau director of board services.

(*Sigh*)

In Wisconsin, two of yesterday’s races were being touted as a referendum on Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) rather extremist anti-worker, anti-middle class agenda. Now it is mostly all over but for the recounts.

The second most important race is for Gov. Walker’s former position as Milwaukee County executive, a post he held from 2002 to 2010. The Republican candidate state Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale), who is portrayed in the liberal blogosphere as a Scott Walker clone. The opponent is philanthropist and political newcomer, Chris Abele (D).

The result? A +22% landslide for Abele:

Abele had 61% of the vote to 39% for Stone, according to unofficial results with all votes counted

The voters of Milwaukee county have spoken: “Walker clone sucks,” or maybe, “We don’t trust no Republicans no more,” or, perhaps, “We dislike Gov. Walker’s extremism and won’t elect his cronies.” It’s hard to adjudicate amongst these options without additional information.

The most important election is for state Supreme Court, where Justice David Prosser (the incumbent) is up against Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg. Kloppenburg is the liberal and Prosser is the semi-crazy conservative in this non-partisan race. Where’d I get the “semi-crazy” from? Well…let’s politely overlook the fact that Sarah Palin has endorsed him (perhaps against his will!). Let’s ask former Gov. Patrick Lucey (D) who, until early April, was the honorary co-chairman of Prosser’s campaign:

“I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman,” Lucey said in the statement. “I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser’s candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice — as for any judge — even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility.”

With no prior information we would might expect the incumbent to prevail.

The election is too close to call. The last numbers I could find have Prosser leading by 585 votes with 34 of 3,596 precincts left to report. As it happens most of the 34 precincts are from pro-Kloppenburg counties.

Starting with the table found here, I project (using ONLY the county-wide percentages and estimate of the number of votes remaining) that there will be 6,546 additional votes for Kloppenburg and 4,871 additional votes for Prosser. After we take into account Prosser’s 585 lead this evening, Kloppenburg should have a final lead of about 1,091 votes. The wrench in the calculations is that I have no idea how many absentee ballots and provisional ballots will be counted and how they will break.

The losing candidate will, no doubt, request a recount (which, under Wisconsin law is not automatic). My hunch is that the recount will favor Kloppenburg a bit (keep in mind what happened in Cantwell–Gorton, 2000; Gregoire–Rossi, 2004; Franken–Coleman, 2008). But watch out for those absentee ballots and provisional ballots…they add considerable uncertainty to any projections.

So, who really wins…Workers or Walker? Given the closeness of this race, it will be hard for either side to make too much over the eventual winner. That said, the expectation that a incumbent should win such a race means that a Kloppenburg win, and maybe even a very close loss, provides modest evidence that Wisconsin voters have joined with their Milwaukee county brethren to give Gov. Walker a collective thumbs down.

Update: With three precincts left to report, it looks like Kloppenburg will lead with about 260 votes. Wisconsin absentee voter law requires ballots to arrive by the 8 pm poll-closing time on election night. There is a limited postmark exception for some overseas military personnel, but the exception doesn’t apply to this election.

There should be a hand full of provisional ballots to count. This 2008 memo points out that provisional ballots must be “dealt with” by 4:00 pm today:

A provisional ballot is used when a person attempts to vote who is required to provide proof of residency but who does not have such proof with them. […]

The person is to be offered the opportunity to vote a provisional ballot and if they agree, are to be provided with envelope marked “ballot under s. 6.97 stats.” The person shall be required to sign written affirmation on envelope that they are qualified elector in that ward or district and is eligible to vote. The ballot shall be noted with “s. 6.97” and person’s name placed on separate list. The person then has until 4 pm the day after the election to provide identification in order for vote to be counted.

For the most part, individuals required to provide proof of residency are those who register to vote on election day. There won’t be many, and as a group they should be younger (new voters), more transient (new state residents), and angrier (formerly inactive) than the general population. I suspect the provisionals will add to Kloppenburg’s lead.

Update II: Now there is one outstanding precinct and Kloppenburg has a 224 vote lead. The remaining county, Jefferson, went for Prosser 58% to 42%. Hence, if the precinct follows the overall county proportions, and is an average sized precinct for the county, Kloppenburg’s lead should be about 139 votes!

Last night I told Goldy last night I wanted Kloppenburg to come out 129 votes ahead (remember 2004?)…I may well get my wish!

Update III: Hmmm…I’ve been using the AP for election results, and they still have one precinct to go in Jefferson county. So I go to the Jefferson county web site and find updated numbers. Assuming none of the other numbers have changed, Prosser gains 2 votes when that last precinct is tallied.

Update IV: The AP has finally gotten that last precinct nailed. Some other numbers have changed a bit, probably as provisional ballots are resolved before the 4:00 pm CDT deadline (2:00 pm PDT).

The current tally has Kloppenburg leading Prosser by 204 votes.

Canvassing must be complete and reported by April 15th. The recount request from Prosser will come a few days later.

Update V: Too funny! Via WisPolitics:

“You’ve got a world driven by Madison, and a world driven by everybody else out across the majority of the rest of the state of Wisconsin,” Walker said at a press conference in the Capitol.
[…]

“For those who believe it’s a referendum, while it might have a statewide impact that we may lean one way or the other, it’s largely driven by Madison, and to a lesser extent Milwaukee,” the governor said.

Here is a beautiful map. Gosh…Madison has sure grown since I’ve lived there….it’s, like, one quarter of the state now! And who knew it had that “suburb” way up north along Lake Superior?

Of course, Walker was elected County Executive in Milwaukee county just a few years ago. And yesterday the county went 61% to 39% in favor of Democrat Chris Abele for the same position. And Milwaukee county went 57% to 43% in favor of Kloppenburg over incumbent Justice Prosser. (Ten years ago Prosser ran unopposed, so we cannot fairly compare the past results.)

It’s election night…in Wisconsin, where there are a couple of “bellwether” elections that are taken to be a referendum on Gov. Walker’s (R-WI) War on Workers™ (and overall teabaggy ways). Polls close at 7:00 pm here on the Left Coast. I guess there are local things to discuss, too, like…budget proposals out of Olympia.

So 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 earlier for election returns over dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 221 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

Last night’s Cannabis Defense Coalition public meeting saw another large crowd. For the second month in a row, I moderated the meeting. The discussion was recorded and the audio should be posted up at the CDC webpage soon (UPDATE: It’s posted).

As expected, the main focus of the discussion was about the medical marijuana bill, SB 5073, which has been amended and re-amended a number of times so far. In its most recent incarnation, it provides for arrest protection for non-registered patients in only the most superficial sense. It prevents law enforcement from taking you to jail, but it doesn’t stop them from searching your house or charging you – and forcing you to use your affirmative defense in court. Of course, signing up for the registry gives you complete arrest protection, but the general sense from most patients is that signing up for the registry is a absolute non-starter, as these lists often end up in the wrong hands.

This dilemma of trust is really the heart of the remaining disagreements with the bill in its current form. The bill represents an attempt to craft a system that protects patients, but many of them are still convinced that they won’t be protected from overzealous law enforcement. For instance, the medical language in sections 301.2a and 2b were written with the help of a physician who had worked on the initial voter initiative in 1998. From a purely technical standpoint, the language of the bill should protect doctors who recommend and authorize medical marijuana use. But from an historical standpoint, there remains a lot of concern that doctors who do so will still be targeted, and that even well-written regulations will be enough to make doctors wary of inviting suspicion. As an example, Douglas Hiatt brought up Grant County, where law enforcement has repeatedly reported legitimate doctors to MQAC because they still believe that any authorization of medical marijuana is improper.

At the meeting, Alison Holcomb of the ACLU of Washington defended the language concerning doctors in Section 301, and assured everyone that doctors wouldn’t be targeted. It’s very possible she’s right and that the concerns expressed by the doctors who’ve been at the last two meetings won’t materialize. The ACLU has been a main driving force for this bill, and yesterday distributed this flyer in support. As has always been the case within drug law reform in Washington state, the ACLU has been more willing to work directly with institutional actors and to believe that they’ll act in good faith, while many in the patient community are more wary. The truth ends up being somewhere in the middle, with cases of law enforcement overreach and administrative cruelty that shock us, but with conditions slowly getting better for patients as we move forward. Much of the problem is one of culture and perception, something that the law can’t address.

One good illustration of this came at the end of the meeting, when defense attorney Kurt Boehl discussed a case he’s currently working on in Bellevue, where a medical marijuana patient used his marijuana while parked in the Bellevue Square parking lot. Very wisely, instead of using his marijuana before he drove, he waited until he got to his destination. The man had tinted windows, but opened his sunroof to allow for ventilation. Unfortunately, some Bellevue Police officers climbed to a high vantage point to see through his sunroof and claimed that he was using his medical marijuana in public view. In this environment, where many police officers are so eager to play gotcha with the law, it’s not hard to understand why many are wary of protections that are anything less than absolute.

Those debates aside, however, there remains one aspect of the bill that is truly bad and needs to be fixed. It’s the “lottery” provision that puts an artificially low cap on the number of dispensaries and could allow for a system where licenses are either given out randomly or to well-connected folks looking for easy profits, as has just happened in New Jersey. We need to push for a system that allows medical marijuana dispensaries to compete and fail based upon how well they serve customers, not based upon whether they possess the only license in town. Establishing a system where dispensaries are protected from competition is the best way to see them artificially inflate their prices and not give a crap about the people who rely on them.

As Goldy points out, we don’t actually need to save GET. But, much like Social Security, its solvency doesn’t stop critics from worrying about it. I don’t know, perhaps this is just concern trolling, but perhaps it’s legit. Better safe than sorry, so, here’s my plan to save GET for ever:

Free tuition. If a student has the qualifications to get into any of our institutions of higher learning, from the UW to our Community Colleges, they can get in. The state picks up everything up to a bachelor’s degree. We should make sure that money isn’t the thing that keeps people out of college. Ideally I’d say do it for everyone, but at the very least, free tuition for in state students.

Now, I realize that college tuition isn’t cheap for parents, so it won’t be cheap for the state. As much as dedicating a source of funding is usually the worse policy, I think that’s the way to go. You figure out how much it’ll cost to make college free across the state, and then figure out the source of money. That way if there’s a referendum to oppose the taxes, you can say that it is a vote against free college.

I know, I know, lots of people push for a high tuition and high financial aid model that many schools (public and private) have. Still our public schools ought to be that, public. And just as we don’t expect the wealthy to pay for public K-12, we shouldn’t expect them to pay a for public college education (outside of taxes). Surely just like the PTSA for K-12, there will be opportunities for wealthy people to pay more, but it shouldn’t be a requirement. There are some things that the market works great for, but education isn’t one of them.

Getting back to GET, the ostensible point of this post: there will be some people in the program who are out of luck. Parents sending their children to out of state schools who have this as part of their plan to pay tuition. We can figure out a way to accommodate them, at least partially. But for anyone in state, this is just as good of a deal as they would have got anyway.

Winners and losers aside, there is then a pot of money that people paid in. I recommend not spending it. I know, I know, in this economy and with my proposal of a major new spending increase, it’s hard to imagine the legislature not spending it down. But I recommend keeping it in place so that if and when future legislatures decide to increase tuition again, that we can revamp GET with that money.