HorsesAss.Org

… but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that Shaun is also having one. His blog was one of the first I read when I started writing, and at some point I realized he had also been on the opposite side of my local district from me in our shared past. And while we’ll continue to disagree about some specifics, I’m glad he and I are on the same side when the primary or whatever other battle within the party is over. Shaun is a smart, engaging writer, and locally we’re blessed to have him around. He talks about issues relating to the part of suburbia where I grew up, and I don’t get that much even from other local blogs.

So, until we can figure out a better way than begging, local bloggers have to stick together. And writing a blog, especially one like Upper Left where there are several worthwhile posts a day, and it’s almost entirely Shaun (Darryl and I and a few others have done fill in, but it’s all Shaun on almost any given day) who also has a day job is no small accomplishment.

Money is tight here, and I didn’t give as much as I would have liked (my car recently died, and despite all my talk of biking, I still do need a car sometimes, so that was a large unexpected expense). But I hope some of you will pitch in, and all of you will read him. Even though if there’s a primary in North King County, he may well be on the wrong side of it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the only Socialist in the US Senate, is in the process of filibustering the tax cut bill the old fashioned way… by, you know, actually filibustering. In other words, he’s been speaking uninterrupted for more than three hours now.

Bravo, Sen. Sanders!

As he took the floor, Sen. Sanders’ staff tweeted:

“You can call what i am doing today whatever you want, you it [sic] call it a filibuster, you can call it a very long speech…”

I call it patriotism.

UPDATE:
Sen. Sanders has actually been talking since 10:25 AM Eastern Time, so it’s actually been about six hours already.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Figured out how to embed the live stream. Watch.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
I’ve just emailed Sen. Maria Cantwell:

Sen. Cantwell,

I am writing to encourage you to please join Sen. Sanders in his heroic performance on the Senate floor today. It looks like he could use a break

You might want to do the same. It also might be nice to send Sen. Sanders a word of thanks.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
Eight and a half hours later, it’s over. And Sanders remained engaging throughout.

Now that I’ve explained to Republican legislators that Levy Equalization equals Socialism, I thought it best to remind Democratic legislators that cuts in levy equalization do not necessarily equate to cuts in state funding for K-12 education.

News reports on the subject often talk about the millions of dollars local school districts get from levy equalization, but that’s not always how the Local Effort Assistance (LEA) program works. No, rather than providing additional funds to eligible districts, LEA often functions more like a property tax credit, lowering homeowners’ property tax bills by the LEA allocation.

For example, take the Tacoma School District, which for 2008 had a voter-approved local levy of $70.9 million dollars. Due to Tacoma’s slightly below-state-average adjusted assessed property value per student, the district received an LEA allocation of about $2.9 million. But because a district’s levy authority is reduced by the amount of the LEA allocation, Tacoma schools did not receive an additional $2.9 million dollars; rather, Tacoma property owners collectively paid $2.9 million less than they otherwise would have in property taxes.

Even had LEA been eliminated in 2008, the Tacoma School District would still have received the same, $70.9 million; Tacoma taxpayers simply would have paid a little more. And there are dozens of other districts where the levy authority “rollback” consumed all or most of the LEA allocation. That’s how levy equalization works.

Of course, there are many, mostly rural districts, that benefit enormously from levy equalization, particularly those with much lower than average assessed property value per student, and that strategically pass the minimal local levy necessary to qualify for the LEA program. For example, in 2008, the Mount Adams school district, with only about 1000 students, and average assessed values almost seven times below the state average, raised only $111,000 from its local levy, but received an additional $594,000 in LEA funds from the state.

That’s about $594 in extra state funds per student. Most Seattle school principals would kill for that kinda money.

Which brings us to my larger complaint with LEA: it is a convoluted hack that serves both as a bandaid on our inadequate level of state funding for K-12 education, and as a disincentive within the communities that rely on LEA most, to support the revenue solutions necessary to adequately fund K-12 education statewide. For the real problem is not that “property poor” districts have a hard time raising adequate local levies, but that they should be forced to rely on local levies at all to provide a basic level of education that is, after all, our state’s “paramount duty.”

So while it may be a little cold to suggest as I did on Slog, that “it’s time to give rural Republicans the government they demand” (and let’s face it, especially when one factors in levy authority rollbacks, LEA is a program that largely benefits rural, Republican leaning districts), it is smart politics for those who truly care about long term education funding to use levy equalization as a bargaining chip to, at the very least, force Republicans to honestly debate the issue. If they want this rural welfare—and it is welfare—they should be forced to fight for it.

But more importantly, if they want adequate state funding of basic education, Republicans should be forced to fight for adequate state funding of basic education for all our children.

Republicans hate gay people.

Not all Republicans, of course, but collectively, as a party, they hate gay people.

Just thought it needed to be said.

Last November, Phil Mocek (who does a lot of work with the CDC and for other civil liberties causes here in Seattle) was arrested at the Albuquerque airport after refusing to show his ID to get through security. He left at the end of last week (by train) for New Mexico for his trial, but it was postponed to January. Here’s a news report from Albuquerque on the case:

You wouldn’t know it from reading the Seattle Times’ reprinting of an Associated Press article on matter, but two local congressman—Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01) and Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7)—have been out in front of the House Dems’ rejection of President Obama’s tax deal appeasement with Republicans. In fact, it was Inslee who actually seconded the motion to refuse to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

It’s almost as if the Times is invested in not representing local Dems as national leaders.

The Seattle Times editorial board is “deeply disappointed” with Gov. Gregoire.

For years, state employees have paid just 12 percent of their health-insurance premiums, including coverage of spouses and children. For years, the 12-percent share has been the target of critics, including this newspaper. We have continually pointed out it is less than half of what private employees typically pay. As the state has become shorter of funds, raising that 12 percent employee contribution has become imperative.

Last summer, the state undertook to negotiate an increase in the ongoing contract, which could be extended through June 30, 2012. Gregoire asked the union to agree to a 26 percent cost share. Last week, she settled for 15 percent. In other words, she tried for an increase of 14 percentage points and won 3. This piddling increase, amounting to $27 a month, will be effective Jan. 1, 2012 — 13 months from now.

(Sigh.)

Where to start? I guess, with the math, where I suppose one could categorize this deal as a “piddling” 3 percent increase, or, one could divide 3 by 12 and understand that what this really represents to state workers is a 25 percent increase in health insurance costs… and that’s on top of the annual premium increases due to inflation.

And, assuming the Times’ own numbers are accurate (not a safe assumption considering their penchant for misleading readers), if 3 percent of monthly premiums equals $27, and workers will now be paying 15 percent, that means the average monthly premium will rise to over $135 by time the new agreement is in effect. So what truly disappoints the Times, apparently, is that state workers’ average share of health insurance premiums didn’t more than double to over $234 a month… an increase of over $1,500 annually.

$1,500 dollars a year. That’s what the Times wants state workers to give back in exchange for, well, nothing.

But the real issue here is not the math, misleading or not. No, the real issue is the Times vehement insistence on misrepresenting our current budget woes as a crisis of spiraling spending, rather than plummeting revenues.

Note to Times: state workers did not cause this budget crisis… a Wall Street induced recession, and an inadequate tax structure did. And the fact that you choose to seize this crisis as just another opportunity to hate on organized labor, does you no credit, and ultimately, does the state no good.

For even if the Times were to achieve its anti-labor agenda beyond its wildest dreams, and roll back government wages and benefits by, say, a stunning 20 percent, it still wouldn’t even buy us a couple years of budget peace, because with or without this crappy economy, our antiquated tax structure simply cannot keep pace with economic growth, nor growth in demand for public services. And as long as so-called civic leaders like the Times insist on addressing only one side of the budget equation, Washington state will continue its slide toward Mississippi-like status.

After stringing it along for months as to whether it would extend its lease another year, the City told management at the Seattle Center’s Fun Forest to clear out by January 2… despite the fact that the Fun Forest was prepared to hand the cash-strapped Center a $250,000 check.

You can read more, including Fun Forest manager Beth McNelley’s on-target email rant, over on Slog.

The Podcast is back after a long (and maybe, not so productive) sabbatical. Goldy and friends open up the ‘cast with a discussion of the Obama tax compromise cave-in, described by one panelist as the“worst messaging disaster…in a long time.” After some major meandering and bitching, Goldy seamlessly segues into levy equalization for Washington State. The panel imagines ways to give Red Washington the government they voted for.

The podcast plows into a deep issue: What does it say about Seattle that 3 or 4 inches of snow invokes “soul searching?” Or is this simply a pathology of a certain Editorial Board (member). Naturally this raises the question, should Goldy run for City Council in 2011? From local politics to an international man of mystery, the panel tackles the ethical, political, legal and corporate revenge ramifications of the Wikileaks leaks for publisher Julian Assange.

Goldy was joined by Peace Tree Farm’s N in Seattle, Effin’ Unsound’s & Horsesass’s Carl Ballard, DailyKos uber-blogger Joan McCarter, and Seattle Drinking Liberally co-host Chris Mitchell.

The show is 48:48, and is available here as an MP3:
[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_dec_7_2010.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

I know I’ve spent a lot of time here on HA recently, scooping the poop spewing from the Seattle Times op/ed pages, so for a change of pace, I’ve posted my latest such piece over on Slog.

Yeah, that’s right, Bruce Ramsey thinks we need more money in politics. Read the whole thing.

I get an awful lot of emails from Amazon these days, advertising all the great deals they’re offering this holiday season, and I gotta admit, like usual, they’ve got a lot of great deals. But this year, I’m not taking advantage of a single one of them.

It’s not that I don’t like great deals. I do. I’m frugal by nature as well as by circumstance. And Amazon has always provided reliable service in the past.

But, well, in giving $100,000 to the No on I-1098 campaign, Jeff Bezos has proven himself to be an arrogant, self-serving prick, who apparently believes his fortune was built entirely upon his own sweat and genius, so quite frankly, I just don’t feel like giving him any of my money at the moment.

To be clear, I’m not one who generally endorses boycotts; attempting to deny someone their livelihood for daring to voice a contrary political opinion, that’s more of a Republican tactic. And honestly, it’s not like the rest of corporate America is run by angels, so the alternatives usually aren’t all that better.

But for the moment at least, fuck Bezos and his online empire.

Please join us tonight for another evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by earlier for dinner.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Gretch Who Saved the War on Christmas
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 235 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

A quick note to any Republican legislators who might be reading this blog, that as you head into the coming special session in an effort to trim another billion dollars or so from the remaining six months of the current state budget, it is important to remember that “levy equalization” equals Socialism.

There’s no two ways about it. The Local Effort Assistance program is redistribution of wealth, pure and simple, shifting the burden of financing public schools from homeowners in “property poor” districts to homeowners in districts with higher than average property valuations. And that’s Socialism.

Personally, I think assuring educational equity is a worthwhile goal, but then, as a big-city, liberal Democrat, I’m not afraid to embrace Socialistic concepts when and where appropriate, but… um… you are. So I can’t see how, as a matter of principle, Republican legislators like you can oppose slashing or eliminating LEA funding in the face of such a yawning revenue shortfall.

Everything that’s wrong with the public discussion over government funding and spending can be summed up in this Seatte Times editorial seeking charitable donations to help fund Medic One training. (Well, maybe not “everything,” but it sure is indicative of how totally fucked up our tax system is.)

MOST King County voters assume their vote every six years for the Medic One levy covers the full cost of emergency medical service. This levy, reasonably separate from the county’s beleaguered general fund, covers basic operating costs of a service that is the gold standard in the country.

As many county residents readily tell you, this is the best place to have a heart attack; survival rates are higher than any other place, with Rochester, Minn., close behind.

… DONATIONS will be accepted by phone, 206-744-9425 or by e-mail at info@mediconefoundation.org. Quality training and medical research is a worthwhile investment.

So if the service is so valuable and so well run, why should we be reduced to begging for money to help fund it? And by the way, the reason the general fund is so “beleaguered” is that so many essential services like Medic One have been pulled out of it, that there is little flexibility remaining in how to prioritize general fund services, and little popular support left in funding.

Furthermore, if they’re going to insist that tax increases remain off the table, isn’t it time for the budget hawks at the Times to stop writing about all the services they support, and start suggesting what services they think we should cut?

This story is just appalling:

Questions about entrapment have dogged counter-terrorism cases for some time, most recently in the case of the Oregon man charged with trying to blow up a Christmas-tree lighting ceremony. Now, from The Washington Post, comes the story of Craig Monteilh, a self-proclaimed FBI informant who was so aggressive in his quest to find potential terrorists at a California mosque that the community got a restraining order against him.

Unless there’s a known group of aspiring terrorists to infiltrate, fishing expeditions like this are pointless exercises in entrapment. They never catch the kinds of highly motivated terrorists who plan and execute dangerous attacks. They merely target easily-led individuals who are susceptible to this type of coercion, of which there are inexhaustible supplies of – in every race, religion, and nationality.

I think I’ve pointed this out before at this site, but a charismatic undercover FBI agent could easily walk into any number of Christian churches in this country and find a poor sap or two to go along with his imaginary plot to blow up a Planned Parenthood office. That would do nothing to make us safer. The same holds true for our local mosques.