Hey Ryan… it’s not like I’ve signed a contract or anything. You top the Stranger’s offer, and give me a spot on your editorial board, and I’m all yours. I even promise not to use the word “fuck.” (You know, in print.)
Come on… you know it would be fun, at least, for your readers. Think about it.
(And there are 40 more links to media from the past week in politics at Hominid Views.)
It’s been a difficult few months attempting to keep enough quality content up here on HA while also contributing almost daily to Slog, especially once the election season ended. So I’m both pleased and wistful to announce that this experiment will soon be coming to a merciful end. Starting February 2, I will give up my part-time gig on Slog… and join the Stranger staff full time.
Part of what this means for HA—a blog into which I’ve invested over six years of my life—should be kinda obvious: come Feb. 2, I simply won’t be writing here much anymore, if at all. I’m working on some plans to try to keep HA going as a relevant, independent voice in the post-Goldy era, but I can’t share any details until I know them.
As for me, I know it’s the right move. The Stranger will give me a larger audience and a steady (if relatively modest) paycheck, plus, after years of toiling under the mixed blessings of my “Horse’s Ass” brand, I’m probably the only political writer in Washington state for whom the Stranger’s masthead would provide a boost in credibility. There’s a part of me that regrets giving up one of the best-read, independent state blogs in the nation to take an MSM job, but in spirit, you can’t get any less mainstream than the Stranger, and I mean, fuck… a newspaper job in this crappy, imploding newspaper market? How could I possibly turn down the opportunity? I’d have to be crazy.
Anyway, I had hoped to put a little more time and care into this announcement, but goddamn Dominic scooped me, so here it is. It’s been an absolute honor serving up dish and rants and whatnot to all of you these past six years. Well… most of you. Okay, some of you. The point is, a blog isn’t worth anything without its readers, and as bloggers go, I know that I’ve been incredibly fortunate to find such a loyal and passionate audience.
So, well, thanks.
If you haven’t already had the chance, Brendan Kiley’s fourth and final installment in his series on tainted cocaine is excellent. The entire series was easily one of the best pieces of local journalism from the past year.
UPDATE: And in other must-read news, Matt Taibbi’s latest on our new Speaker of the House is the usual great mix of hilarious and infuriating.
Yeah, I sure do enjoy poking a little fun at Crosscut—kinda a friendly rivalry—but really, Roger Valdez’s piece on waste in government is a must read.
As I’ve long said, a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, public or private, and anybody who has ever worked for or with a large, established corporation knows what I’m talking about. Think there’s no waste, fraud or abuse at Microsoft or Boeing? Talk to a few longtime employees, and then tell me how it’s any worse in the public sector.
I’m not saying there aren’t any efficiencies to be gained in government. Of course there are. But all this perennial talk about waste, fraud and abuse is just a way of avoiding the more difficult conversation about policy priorities.
The GOP wins control of the US House in November, while making big gains in the Senate, and just a month later the unemployment rate falls to 9.4 percent, the lowest rate in 19 months. Wow, those Republicans sure did move fast to turn this economy around… even before they actually took office.
Of course I’m joking, but if unemployment continues to fall, dollars to donuts the GOP will attempt to take the credit during the 2012 election. See, that’s how it works. Booming economy and budget surpluses by the end of the Clinton administration, and that’s thanks to the policies put in place by Ronald Reagan. Near historic economic collapse and record deficits after eight years of Bush administration mismanagement, and that’s all Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress’ fault. Any recovery we see between November 2, 2010 and November 6, 2012… well clearly, it’ll be all the House Republicans’ doing.
And the funny sad thing is, a lot of Americans will buy it.
Nightlife promoter and bar owner Dave Meinert provides no hard numbers to back up his claim that the state could raise an easy $1.5 billion a year by massively expanding both legalized gambling and alcohol sales in Washington state, yet in attempting to refute my opposition to his proposal, he routinely dismisses me as an “old school thinker” who “doesn’t get it,” and who throws “shit at the wall,” while basically “guessing” about the economics of gaming. So in case he tries to similarly dis me today on KUOW, I thought it best to post a few links to some of my source material:
Lancet: Alcohol “most dangerous drug”
National Gambling Impact Study
WA Lottery: GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING IN WASHINGTON STATE: A REPLICATION STUDY, 1992 TO 1998
Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling
Bill Virgin, Seattle P-I: Gambling craze not a good bet for states
These are all sources, by the way, that I’ve cited throughout my six years extensively covering this subject here on HA, as well as my behind the scenes activism on behalf of the welfare of problem and pathological gamblers. So if Meinert wants to dismiss me as not knowing what I’m talking about, he does so at his risk.
UPDATE:
For those who listened to the show, I a couple of points I didn’t have time to make.
Meinert talked about allowing a limited number of card rooms in Seattle, but that’s not how state law works. State law gives cities the power to either allow or disallow card rooms, but not the power to limit the number, or limit where they may locate beyond normal zoning powers. Once we allow card rooms, we lose all control. It’s an all or nothing, and Seattle has chosen nothing.
I also find it amazing that Meinert would brush off the difference between a problem gambling incidence rate of one percent and five percent as mere statistics. Five percent is five times one percent. Furthermore, while problem gamblers may make up a relatively small part of the general public, they make up a huge proportion of the casinos profits, with some studies showing up to 50 percent of the revenue from slot machines coming from problem gamblers (the 1998 WA study cited above found 40 percent).
Finally, Meinert likes to talk about “starting the conversation,” but we’ve had this conversation again and again, and he’s consistently come out on the losing side, most recently with the liquor privatization initiatives, and a few years back with Tim Eyman’s odious slot machine initiative. Washington voters simply don’t want this, and it is disingenuous to attempt to exploit our current budget crisis as an opportunity for a windfall for bar owners like Meinert.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
One further point for the moment. Meinert talks about card rooms and casinos as economic engines, but this simply isn’t true. They don’t manufacture money. Rather, they pull discretionary spending from other discretionary activities, or in the case of pathological gamblers, non-discretionary spending.
His proposals won’t turn Seattle into Las Vegas. Tourists won’t flock here to come to our casinos, nor will Washingtonians cancel their trips to Vegas. Rather, casinos and card rooms and slot machines in bars will mostly compete for local business between themselves, and with other local entertainment venues. It’s a zero sum game, particularly slot machines in bars, which studies show to be the worst form of gambling if your goal is economic development.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the general sentiment of the Seattle Times’ recent editorials on higher education and fixing potholes; these both constitute important government services that demand public investment, as the Times appears to recognize. But if the Times’ editors are going to continue editorializing in favor of spending taxpayer dollars, they might want to start rethinking their seemingly knee-jerk opposition to raising them.
For example, in making the case for dedicating more city resources towards pothole repair, the Times correctly points out that in 2006, Seattle voters approved a roads and bridges levy that, amongst other things, promised to “pave and repair Seattle streets.” What the Times fails to recall is that its editorial board advised readers to vote “No” on the $365 million proposition.
Likewise, while the editors rightly insist that “among the many things Washington must do about higher education, none will be as important as returning its investment in the system to a stronger, more robust stage,” they were also among the loudest voices arguing against a high earners income tax that would have restored budget dollars for education, while reducing taxes for 98 percent of Washington households.
The Times editors like to smugly harrumph about “Tax and Spend Liberals” like me, and I don’t deny the label—I think our state currently invests too little in our public and human infrastructure to sustain and grow our economy and improve our quality of life. Disagree with that perspective if you want, but at least give me credit for enunciating how we might pay for my spending priorities, unlike those “Don’t-Tax but Spend Conservatives” at the Seattle Times.
Heads up: I’ll be on KUOW’s The Conversation at around 12:40 this afternoon, giving nightlife promoter (and bar owner) Dave Meinert the business over his misguided proposal to help fill our state budget hole through doubling consumption of alcohol and a tenfold increase in gambling. I’ll post a few relevant stats and links closer to air time.
I’ve had a few phone conversations over the past few days with an old college friend who’s now an attorney in the Miami area. Back in college, he was a Republican, but he’s now utterly terrified of what new Republican Governor Rick Scott is going to do to that state. For those who haven’t followed his illustrious career, Scott is the health care executive who paid a $1.7 billion settlement after his company was found to have been defrauding the government. I can’t even begin to understand how someone like that was able to win a statewide election in any state.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
As much as it might pain me to type this… what Danny Westneat said.
Please join us tonight for the first evening of politics under the influence in 2011 at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm. Or join some of us for dinner around 7:00 pm.
Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 236 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.
I got nothing. At least, nothing I feel like writing about at the moment. So talk amongst yourselves.
Net tuition and fees cost, University of Pennsylvania vs. typical state university.
As I explained yesterday on Slog, the High Tuition/High Financial Aid model proposed by Gov. Gregoire’s higher education task force, doesn’t exactly work if the plan doesn’t guarantee high financial aid, and from what I’ve seen of it, I’m just not confident that this proposal does. What might satisfy me? Well, for one, a philosophical shift in the task force’s objectives:
Along with more money from tuition, the task force’s proposal would lessen the impact to lower- and middle-income families by creating a private financial-aid endowment, with a goal of raising $1 billion in the next decade.
Change “lessen the impact” to “eliminate the impact,” and then back it up with reasonable safeguards, and you might just get my support, along with a enough Democrats in Olympia to make this a reality. Otherwise… piss off.
As the chart at the top of the post illustrates, it is possible to charge sky-high tuition, while keeping a college degree affordable to lower- and middle-income families. This chart compares the net costs at my admittedly pricey alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, to those at a typical public university, and as you can see, once financial aid packages are factored in, Penn can turn out to be just as affordable. In fact, more so, as Penn’s aid comes entirely in the form of grants, meaning its students no longer graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in loans.
That’s the way the High Tuition/High Financial Aid model is supposed to work. Those families that can afford to pay full price do; those who can’t, pay what they can afford. At Penn, students from typical families earning less than $90,000 a year receive grants equal to full tuition and fees; students from families earning less than $40,000 have their room and board covered too.
And it could work that way in Washington state too, if both the money and the commitment is there to move to this model without making a four-year degree less affordable to lower- and middle-income families.
So in the interest of moving this conversation forward, I’d like to suggest that my friends in the legislature consider this very simple but significant amendment to the task force’s proposals: give our four-year universities the freedom to set tuition prices as they see fit, but impose a needs tested cap on the net cost to in-state, lower- and middle-income families.
In the end, I couldn’t care less where the sticker price of a UW degree falls in relation to that at comparable public universities, and neither should should students or lawmakers. All that matters is the net cost of that degree in relation to what the student can afford. And if we as a state can embrace and defend this principle, then the move to tuition flexibility can be a net plus for our higher education system as a whole.
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!