HorsesAss.Org

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been highlighting for me a very interesting paradox in how we understand the concept of responsibility:

BP repeatedly disregarded safety problems, according to a new damning investigation from ProPublica that was copublished with The Washington Post. Documents about internal safety investigations leaked to ProPublica by “a person close to the company” show a pattern of neglect and a culture skewed toward silencing whistle-blowers.

The investigations described instances in which management flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured employees not to report problems, and cut short or delayed inspections to reduce production costs.

That article was from a month ago, even before Texas Congressman Joe Barton expressed regret that BP was being pressured to take responsibility for the spill with a $20 billion fund set aside to cover the damage.

We often point to how the law treats corporations as equals to individuals as a major problem that creates skewed outcomes within our legal system and a dangerous downstream effect on society. But I’m not sure that that alone captures the depth of the problem. The problem is that we have two separate notions of what it means to be responsible – and that individuals and corporations are held to very different standards.

We make a lot of laws in this country that focus on our individual behavior. We zap speeders on the freeway and set up red light cameras. We fine people for jaywalking or drinking a beer on the sidewalk. We make people wear helmets on motorcycles and seat belts in their cars. The value of these restrictions are sometimes debated (and I certainly don’t like some of them), but they almost always have the broad support of the public – and few politicians dare to challenge the necessity of these laws that require responsibility on our part, both to ourselves and others. Government is seen as being the hammer necessary to force people to be responsible citizens.

But when it came to the years leading up to the devastating oil spill that wrecked both the environment and the economy of the Gulf Coast, the government was completely hamstrung in its ability to get BP or its partners to exercise even a minimal amount of responsibility, or even punish them when their previous irresponsibility led to actual damage (like when the Texas City refinery blew up, killing 15 people).

Part of this happens through outright corruption, but part if it is also from a belief that if we hold companies responsible with regulations, we’ll make it too hard for them to succeed and move our economy forward. Following this idea to an extreme, we now treat corporations far more kindly than we treat individuals. It has become an internalized double-standard that government protects society by holding individuals responsible, but endangers society by holding corporations responsible.

This article from last weekend in the New York Times shows how easy it is for companies like the ones at the heart of the Gulf oil spill to exploit this tendency:

With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

…

Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs.

“These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

Can you imagine if individuals were treated the way we treat oil companies? Sure, your honor, I killed a busload of children while driving drunk, but if you make me pay too step a penalty or force me to stop drinking and driving again, I’ll just take my productivity to another country!

Even within the White House, which is supposedly run by anti-business socialists, this skewed mindset has a foothold:

I was on Good Morning America this not-so-good morning, doing what I could. But I was struck by something that George Stephanopoulos said: he claimed to have been speaking to an administration official who asserted that what we need to get businesses investing is for business to know that the government has stopped — presumably, that means no new spending, no new regulation, whatever.

GS is a careful guy, so this must be true. And it’s shocking — not that people are saying this, but that someone inside the administration is saying it.

It’s garbage, of course: businesses are refusing to invest because they don’t see enough demand for their products. And administration economists know that it’s garbage. But obviously some people in the WH — I’m guessing a political person, but who knows — have bought the right-wing line hook, line, and sinker.

In the meantime, while we cower in fear of potentially spooking these fragile businesses who can’t survive unless government becomes completely subservient to their every whim, we can’t even extend unemployment benefits to the folks who aren’t being hired by any of these great, glorious businesses. And this may highlight the full extent of our double-standard. Politicians see spending money on subsidies for oil companies as being necessary to help our economy, but see spending money on the unemployed as a waste, even though the latter belief is completely baseless. It’s as if we could have the perfect economy by keeping the corporations perfectly happy but jettisoning all these pesky human beings weighing down the system.

It may be unfair to single out any one person, but state Sen. Ed Murray deserves a ton of a credit for the successful strategy by which Washington’s legislature has gradually expanded gay and lesbian rights over the past five years.

Rather than going for the big prize — marriage equality — and much to the disappointment of some activists, Murray has promoted a more patient and pragmatic political approach. In 2006, after 30 years of prior failure, Murray led the charge in finally adding sexual orientation to Washington’s anti-discrimination laws, only to follow up a year later by helping to pass our state’s historic domestic partnership bill. In 2008 the Legislature vastly expanded domestic partnerships, and in 2009 Murray helped passed what he dubbed the “Everything But Marriage Act,” granting to domestic partners all of the state rights, responsibilities and protections legally associated with marriage.

Is “Everything But Marriage” really everything but marriage? Symbolically, no, but in a state where just five years ago one could be legally denied a job, a loan or a lease just on the suspicion of being a little faggy, it’s a huge step toward that goal. And, as Murray has pointed out on numerous occasions, calling domestic partnerships “marriage” still wouldn’t afford same-sex partners the many rights and benefits that are denied them under our federal Defense Of Marriage Act.

Until, maybe, today.

In a decision that seemed to take a lot of observers by surprise, a U.S. District Court Judge in Massachusetts ruled part of DOMA unconstitutional in that it interferes with states’ rights to define marriage. And while no doubt litigation will continue for months if not years before the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately settles the question, even the possibility of dismantling DOMA’s restrictions either in Congress or in the courts, is sure to spark demand for full marriage equality here in Washington state.

Is there the political will to take that final step? For the moment, I kinda doubt it. But should the federal DOMA’s demise come sooner than expected, it’s hard to imagine how marriage equality won’t become a dominant issue in future legislative sessions, whatever the political cost.

Lost in the debate over how best to use the remaining two acres of Seattle Center’s Fun Forest is the fact that the site is already home to a popular, rent-paying, job-producing attraction: the, um, Fun Forest.

Yeah sure, I know the hipsters and aging hipsters and yuppies and cultural elitists who dominated last night’s hearing all look down their nose at kitchy amusements and carnival rides, but since the opening days of the 1962 World’s Fair, the Fun Forest has been as much a part of the Seattle Center as the Space Needle that looms above it. And the family owned business that runs it is in no rush leave; they’d love to secure a long term lease, but they’re happy to operate on a year-to-year basis if that’s what works best for the city.

Much was made last night by Chihuly proponents about how their proposal is the only one that won’t require a public subsidy, but even in its reduced footprint, the Fun Forest is already producing about $250,000 a year in rent, taxes and concession fees, while employing 30 people in season. So honestly, what’s the rush?

I know the Fun Forest doesn’t fit into the Master Plan that calls for its removal, but neither does a paid-admission, for-profit glass gallery/gift shop/catering hall. And since it’s already producing revenues while providing residents and tourists a much needed family-friendly amenity, what’s the harm in leaving it in place for another year while we get to have a real public debate about the best use for the site? I mean, it’s not like it’s a vacant lot gathering abandoned cars or homeless encampments. It’s the Fun Forest for chrisakes. Kids love it!

I’m told the Wright family is a bit insulted by the city’s failure to embrace their proposal, and have threatened to pull out if a deal isn’t signed soon. But surely, if Ye Olde Chihuly Shoppe makes such good business sense to them now, it would still make good business sense a year from now, so it’s hard to take such hardball tactics seriously… especially when the guaranteed revenue from their paid admission “museum” isn’t all that much higher than what is already being generated by an attraction that has catered to Seattle families for two generations.

Yeah, I know… it’s hard to take something seriously when it has the word “Fun” in its title. But for all the arguments for and against the Chihuly proposal, I’ve never heard anybody attempt to explain what is so godawful about the status quo.

David Frum criticizing a Sarah Palin ad today [emphasis mine]:

Here’s Sarah Palin’s new ad. Lots of images of the former governor speaking to adoring crowds, meeting admirers, encountering women and children.

But here’s the remarkable thing. Republicans normally work hard to ensure that their ads feature non-white faces, to present an image of welcome and inclusion.

…

In Palin’s ad — not one. Now listen carefully to the audio, which twice warns of a “fundamental transformation of America,” twice emphasizes a threat to children and grandchildren from malign unnamed forces.

I think she’s talking about healthcare. I hope so. But she never does say so.

David Frum – May 3:

Three years ago, ETS — the people who administer the SAT — released an alarming study. It combined information on test scores with demographic trends to predict that the U.S. work force of 2030 would be less literate, less skilled and worse paid than the U.S. work force of 1990.

ETS reported: “[B]y 2030 the average levels of literacy and numeracy in the working-age population will have decreased by about 5 percent while inequality will have increased by about 7 percent. Put crudely, over the next 25 years or so, as better-educated individuals leave the work force they will be replaced by those who, on average, have lower levels of education and skill. Over this same period, nearly half of the projected job growth will be concentrated in occupations associated with higher education and skill levels. This means that tens of millions more of our students and adults will be less able to qualify for higher-paying jobs.”

Why?

One word: Immigration.

This is what a sham looks like, at least through the somewhat inadequate lens of my iPhone’s camera.

Last night hundreds of people gathered again to voice our opinions about the best public use of the Fun Forest site at the Seattle Center, and once again we couldn’t help but get the vibe that we were just being humored. Oh, the committee and the Chihuly gift-shop/catering-hall folks at least tried to make a better show of it this time as compared to the insulting propaganda-fest of the first public meeting, but it was still just a show. I didn’t talk to anybody who believed  a decision hasn’t already been made.

The problem is, as much as the committee will ultimately claim that this was a fair and open process, there’s nothing fair or open about taking a year and a half to secretly negotiate the details of the Chihuly proposal, and then publishing an RFP tailored to the same while giving everybody else just six weeks to respond. And so yeah, I kinda resented being there last night playing the role of “Man in Auditorium” in the Seattle Center’s unintentional amateur production of Our Town.

And like most bad theater, it’s not hard to predict how this play ends.

I don’t want to come off as the sorta blogger who obsesses on issues (though actually, it’s kinda my schtick), but I just can’t help but go back to that misleading article on Sen. Patty Murray’s fundraising in yesterday’s Seattle Times.

As the Times accurately reports, Sen. Murray has raked in a lot of cash from lobbyists and PACs, a not all too surprising fact considering that she’s one of the most powerful appropriators in Congress. And as I’ve already pointed out, it would be professional malpractice for lobbyists not to give to Murray.

There’s no indication that Sen. Murray has done anything illegal or unethical in accepting these contributions, or that contributors have purchased themselves any undue influence. In fact, as an anecdote involving her angry reaction to Boeing’s decision to build 787s in Charleston clearly illustrates, Sen. Murray is not afraid to publicly threaten one of her top contributors.

But what really sticks in my craw — and what leads me to wonder if the Times’ Kyung M. Song fully understands the subject on which she’s reporting — is how, in a subsection titled “Friends with agendas,” the article blatantly misrepresents the role of online political contribution clearinghouse ActBlue:

Microsoft is Murray’s top donor by contributor; its executives, employees and its PAC have given $131,000 since 2005 to Murray’s campaign and to M-PAC. The company just edged out the No. 2 contributor, ActBlue, a political-action committee that bundles individual donations to Democratic candidates.

Well, yeah, technically ActBlue is a PAC, and it does bundle individual donations to candidates, but that’s not particularly descriptive, especially within the context of an article whose thesis appears to be that Sen. Murray is a captive of special interests. For ActBlue doesn’t actually function like most every other federal PAC.

Most PACs raise money into their coffers, and leave it to their board to decide which candidates and committees to distribute funds to. ActBlue doesn’t do that. Instead, it uses its PAC status to legally accept earmarked contributions from donors, merely serving as a conduit to forward those contributions to the directed candidates and committees.

The genius behind ActBlue is that it democratizes online giving by taking most of the paperwork, time and expense out of what can be a very complicated process, enabling, say, bloggers like me to help raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates (like, say, Darcy Burner), with little more than a blog post and a link. For example, simply click here to make a secure, credit card contribution to Sen. Murray, and ActBlue will forward it to her campaign.

And ActBlue’s model has proven a fantastic success. Since 2004, ActBlue has sent $138,297,445 to Democratic candidates and committees, via 1,063,855 contributions, for an average donation size of less than $130.00. Donors have elected to support 6,000 distinct committees through ActBlue, at every level of politics from local to federal.

So I forwarded the Times article to ActBlue communications director Adrian Arroyo, and asked him to put those numbers in perspective:

“I think those numbers underscore why it’s misleading to lump ActBlue in with the other PACs mentioned in the article, especially given the unfortunate section header “friends with agendas.” Unlike the other PACs listed, ActBlue doesn’t tell donors where to donate–that decision is entirely in their hands. Kyung M. Song wants to argue that Sen. Murray’s incumbency has led to her capture by special interests, but the fact that ActBlue is her #2 “contributor” undermines that thesis. It demonstrates that, in the aggregate, small donors can engage in politics at the same level as mega-corporations like Boeing and Microsoft. That’s good for Sen. Murray, good for Democrats, and good for democracy.”

If all you knew about Sen. Murray’s fundraising came from reading the Seattle Times, you’d think ActBlue was some powerful special interest group — you know, one of those “friends with agendas” — when in fact it is merely a tool for enabling small donors like me and you to collectively rival the power of special interests.

All the more reason why it would be a disservice to voters to let them get all their news from the Seattle Times.

Having followed Michael Steele’s inexplicable career as RNC chair, I’m beginning to understand what so many Republicans have against affirmative action.

Source: USDA (via TPM)

Why are Coke, Pepsi and the rest of the beverage industry spending millions of dollars to repeal Washington’s temporary tw0-cent per 12-ounce serving excise tax on carbonated beverages? Because, as this new USDA study confirms, raising taxes on sugary beverages does indeed decrease consumption.

Soda taxes are being pushed in states and cities nationwide, partially as revenue generators, and partially as public health measures, for as this USDA study also demonstrates, decreasing consumption of sugary beverages also decreases overall caloric consumption, leading to a substantial drop in obesity rates and its associated costs.

A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).

It’s basic economics really. Raise the cost of something nonessential, and consumers will purchase less of it.

Of course our two-cent per 12-ounce tax was mostly sold as a revenue measure, and only comes to more like an average 7 percent price increase, so we won’t see the same degree of public health benefit as that shown in the USDA study, but the I-1107 sponsors can’t have it both ways. They can’t oppose the initiative because it would decrease consumption of their product while at the same time dismissing the public health benefits of reduced consumption.

Make the nanny state argument if you like, but we regularly use our tax code to influence behavior (you know, like cutting taxes on the wealthy to spur investment). And with both our state and our nation is in the midst of an obesity epidemic, I can think of worse ways to fill our gaping budget hole than a tax on soda-pop.

For those brave souls who like to wade through the muck of HA’s comment threads, Effin Unsound is launching a contest to find the stupidest comment left every month either here or at any other northwest blog.

Please join us tonight for another Tuesday 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 and join some of us for dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 328 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

The Washington Farm Bureau came out with their primary election endorsements today, and they’re almost entirely Republican of course. For example, at the Federal level they endorsed Republicans John Koster (R), Jaime Herrera (R), Rep. Doc Hastings (R) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Congressional Districts respectively.

But what I found most interesting was this little comment on the U.S. Senate race:

No candidate for U.S. Senate received sufficient recommendations to allow for an endorsement.

And of course by “no candidate” what they really mean is Republican “Dino Rossi.”

So why did Rossi, who the Farm Bureau previously endorsed for governor, get snubbed when a do-nothing seat-warmer like Hastings easily gets the nod? Was there a large contingent of Clint Didier supporters? Or perhaps incumbent Sen. Patty Murray, who won the Friend of the Farm Bureau Award in 2009, has a few, um, friends on the Farm Bureau who appreciate her work on behalf of Washington’s agriculture industry?

Huh.

I had a nice relaxing Fourth of July weekend celebrating my freedom… the freedom from reading the Seattle Times. But now that the holiday is over I’m back to my usual grind, and oy is it particularly grinding today.

Take for example the front page, above-the-fold article on Sen. Patty Murray’s fundraising: “Lobbyists are Sen. Murray’s biggest donors.” Uh-huh. And your point is…?

The headline makes it sound nefarious, but the article, not so much. For example, we learn that back when she was first elected, Murray didn’t attract much money from lobbyists, but now that she’s a three-term incumbent, a top member of the Senate leadership, “one of only four people to sit on both the Senate budget and appropriations committees,” and a chair of two powerful Appropriations subcommittees, the tables have turned.

Well… duh-uh. It’d be professional malpractice for lobbyists not to give to Murray. Dog bites man, and all that.

And then there’s the Times expose of Murray’s big corporate donors, which includes following inexcusable muddle:

Microsoft is Murray’s top donor by contributor; its executives, employees and its PAC have given $131,000 since 2005 to Murray’s campaign and to M-PAC. The company just edged out the No. 2 contributor, ActBlue, a political-action committee that bundles individual donations to Democratic candidates.

Let’s be perfectly clear: ActBlue is no more a contributor to Murray than VISA or MasterCard, and to suggest otherwise is downright misleading. ActBlue is nothing more than tool — an “online clearinghouse for Democratic action” as its motto explains — used by campaigns, bloggers, activists and individuals to facilitate contributions, and you’d think Times reporter Kyung M. Song might want to explain that before implying otherwise.

As for Murray’s top contributors who really are top contributors, it’s kinda amazing that a newspaper so prone to licking the feet of Washington state corporate giants like Microsoft, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser would attempt to make an issue out of Murray receiving donations from Washington state corporate giants like Microsoft, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser, especially while illustrating Murray’s reputation for fierce independence.

One donor was Tim Keating, Boeing’s senior vice president of government operations. Keating donated $2,400 to Murray in April 2009, shortly after the company privately briefed her that it likely would locate a second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in Charleston, S.C., instead of in Everett.

Two months later, Keating gave Murray another $2,400. In October, Boeing announced Charleston as its pick. A furious Murray threatened to withhold her support for any Boeing projects beyond Washington’s borders.

Yup, that certainly sounds like Murray is in Boeing’s pockets.  Not.

Of course the big checks are gonna stand out, but Murray has received over 65,000 individual contributions so far this cycle, 85 percent of them from within Washington state, in an average amount of only $39.00. To put that in perspective, Murray will likely have more individual contributors this cycle than the allegedly grassrooty Clint Didier will receive votes.

Still, as long as the Times is focusing on this kinda stuff I’m assuming they’ll take an equally hard look at where Rossi has raised his money over the years, and where he’s raising it from now. You know, like the millions of dollars the BIAW has spent trying to elect him to the governor’s mansion, and whether Rossi’s refusal to state a position on Wall Street reform has anything to do with his recent fundraiser with hedge fund manager Paul Singer?

I mean if the the Times is as fair and balanced and objective as they claim to be, we’ll be seeing all that above the fold too, right?

Right?

I agree with the Seattle Times editorial board: “It’s time to end the pingpong match over the viaduct tunnel project.”

It’s much too dangerous to play a pingpong match over or under the earthquake damaged Alaska Way Viaduct. And who the hell schedules a sporting event in the middle of a freeway? What were the organizers thinking?

But once I got past that headline, the Times editors lost me:

To outsiders looking in, Seattle leaders have nothing better to do than play political pingpong on the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Oh. Political pingpong.  I get it now. It was a metaphor.

But perhaps I was just distracted by the ed board’s mysterious claim of psychic powers:

State lawmakers approved the project, the governor favors it and the region — save for one activist mayor — considers the matter settled.

Hear that? Except for Mayor Mike McGinn, the entire region favors the Big Bore tunnel, even me! Wow. The Times must know me better than I do. Amazing.

Okay, all snark aside, there is a germ of an idea in the Times editorial that could be promoted to help settle this dispute — assuming the Times is at least as interested in ending this pingpong match as it is in flinging the paddles at the Mayor — and it has to do with the controversial cost overrun provision:

At issue for the mayor is language in state legislation that attempts to lay potential cost overruns on an ill-defined group of Seattle area property owners who benefit from the project. McGinn seeks language in contracts with the state that delay the project until the Legislature changes the legislation.

The Legislature will not reconvene for certain until January and is not inclined to eliminate that verbiage because the governor, city attorney and most of the City Council consider it unenforceable.

[…] It is interesting to note the state legislation attempting to take the unprecedented move of dumping overruns on a city through which one of its roadway passes never mentions the city of Seattle as a corporate entity. That more than suggests it would be difficult to sue the city.

The Times goes on to suggest that if Mayor McGinn won’t sign the contracts, then Seattle City Council president Richard Conlin should sign them instead, despite the fact that it’s not at all clear he has that authority. But as long as the Times is demanding that the Council take the initiative in the ed board’s campaign to embarrass and diminish the Mayor, why not instead use the cost overrun issue to promote unity?

Why not suggest that the Council pass a motion rejecting the cost overrun provision, declaring that it will not authorize city funds to be used for that purpose, and will not authorize any taxes or taxing districts to collect such funds? If the provision is really as illegal and unenforceable as the Times suggests, then why not have the Council back up the Mayor on this issue, and allow our city government to speak with one voice in defense of city taxpayers? I mean, if the provision is as meaningless as the Times suggests, why not move this thing forward by allowing the Mayor to save a little face?

Of course, if Mayor McGinn still refuses to sign the contracts, then he’ll have backed himself into a corner. But he’s not there yet, so the smart political thing to do would be to create a scenario in which everybody can be a winner.

Unfortunately, I’m guessing the Times’ politics are about as smart as its headlines.

(From Clusterstock and CBPP, via Daily Kos)

Republicans in Congress are blocking an extension of unemployment benefits because, they claim, it would add too much to the current budget deficit. So, in the same interest, will they also let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year?

I just drove back from Oregon (FYI, stop and go traffic for much of the way from Chehalis through Tacoma), and if elections were decided by giant signs along the freeway, Clint Didier would have this U.S. Senate race pretty much wrapped up, at least in Southwest Washington.