HorsesAss.Org

Driving home from this morning’s I-1077 kickoff, I listened to KUOW’s The Conversation, as the Washington Policy Center’s Paul Guppy raised a familiar trope in opposition to a high-earners income tax, arguing that many high-earners will simply pick up and leave:

“People with high incomes are very mobile, so it’s easy for them to change their residence, to move their income or change their tax status in someway, so I don’t think that the supporters would realize as much revenue from this tax as they expect.”

Uh-huh.

A reporter raised this issue to Bill Gates Sr., who brushed it aside by asking “Where do you go?”… the point being that 43 other states already levy an income tax, so it’s not like I-1077 puts Washington at such a competitive disadvantage. “You could go to Alaska, I guess,” Gates continued, but even that level of dismissiveness takes the question too seriously, for the entire critique is predicated on the bizarre notion that we shouldn’t levy a tax on rich people because a handful of them might go out of their way to avoid paying it.

Guppy’s argument also ignores the fact that one of the advantages of being wealthy is that it enables you to consume and enjoy the finer things in life. For example, nobody forces anybody to spend $50,000 on a Lexus when a $10,000 Hyundai can get you from point A to point B just as well; wealthy folks choose to purchase luxury cars because they can afford them, just like they choose to raise their families in Medina or Mercer Island over, say, White Center or Gold Bar.

Likewise, I don’t expect a family earning a million dollars a year to move to South Dakota to save $30,000 in annual taxes. I mean, what would be the point of being rich?

As Gates explains, Washington is “a great place to live.” And it’s the folks who can best afford to live here who are actually least likely to leave.

That’s Bill Gates Sr., the father of the richest man in America, explaining what Initiative 1077 actually proposes, and why he’s taking the lead on instituting a high earners income tax in Washington state.

Class warfare?

A minor adjustment to the layout of today’s Seattle Times front page shows exactly why Initiative 1077’s proposed high earners income tax is going to do a helluva lot better at the polls than the conventionally wise expect, for while the Times chooses to put the tax in bold, above-the-fold type, most voters are at least as concerned with the potential for mass teacher layoffs as they are with protecting the wealthy from higher taxes.

Yes, I-1077 would raise taxes on the top 3 percent of households, but the rest of use would see a tax cut: $160/year for the average King County homeowner. And while yeah, the wealthy are an important part or our economy, I-1077 would actually improve the business climate in our state by exempting 80 percent of businesses from the B&O tax, while reducing B&O taxes on another 10 percent.

But just as importantly, I-1077 would raise an additional $1 billion a year, dedicated to education and health care, two sectors that have endured enormous budget cuts over the past two years.

Nobody likes to raise taxes, but this measure isn’t being run in a vacuum, and given the choice between further underfunding K-12 education and adding a little progressivity into our tax system, I’m guessing an awful lot of voters are going to choose the latter.

It’s the Ask Goldy hour for this episode of the Podcast, wherein folks who have donated at least five bucks to the Horses Ass annual biennial fundraiser have purchased the privilege to ask Goldy anything at all. Goldy bares his soul in addressing the spectrum of questions from his love life to his Torah portion, and a few timely political questions, too. In between questions and answers, the panel delves into the political topics of the week.

Goldy was joined by Peace Tree Farm’s N in Seattle, a surprise visit by FakeTedVanDyk, DailyKos Uber-blogger mcjoan, and me.

The show is 1:00:30, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_apr_20_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.]

With a fat donor list left over from his two unsuccessful campaigns for governor, there’s no doubt Dino Rossi could raise a relatively large chunk of money relatively quickly should he choose to jump into the race against Democratic incumbent Sen. Patty Murray. But given Murray’s own fundraising prowess, and her $8.8 $9.8 million head start, it’s hard to see Rossi jumping into the fray without assurances of a substantial financial commitment from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Yet given the electoral landscape and the status of their own fundraising efforts, it’s equally hard to see the NRSC being able to live up to the kinda commitment Rossi would require.

Indeed, the NRSC’s current cash-on-hand, about $15 million, actually trails its performance at the same point in both the 2006 and 2008 cycles, when it was sitting on $16.6 million and $17.3 million respectively. In case you forgot, those elections didn’t turn out too well for Republican incumbents and hopefuls, yet if you believe the NRSC’s tough talk, it’ll be spending its resources in even more competitive races than it did in either of those two cycles.

By comparison, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee continues to out-raise its Republican counterpart, and now enjoys $17.3 million cash-on-hand, a $2.3 million advantage.

Back in 2004, Murray ultimately raised over $13 million in her lopsided battle against the politically diminutive George Netthercutt, and with fundraising typically backloaded toward the final months of the campaign, there’s no reason to expect she won’t raise considerably more than that should she face a competitive challenger.

Can Rossi come close to funding parity in only five or six months? No. Can the NRSC afford to make up much of the difference? Not without drawing precious dollars away from more promising contests.

Rossi must know that. Thus as flattering as the NRSC’s attention surely has been, he must also know that he’s being asked to make a sacrifice for the good of the party, not the other way around. And I just don’t believe that’s a sacrifice — his gubernatorial ambitions — that he’s ready to make.

Former state GOP chair Chris Vance, writing at Crosscut about the race in WA-03 to replace retiring Rep. Brian Baird:

In the end it probably won’t matter which Democrat prevails. The 3rd is a Republican-leaning district and this looks like a Republican year. Herrera is most likely going to Congress.

I have to hand it to the Republicans, when they send out a bit of spin/conventional wisdom, most of them stick to it like glue. Herrera is thoroughly untested as a major candidate for Congress, having won a single election for the state House of Representatives after she was appointed in the ultra-conservative 18th Legislative district after the Richard Curtis sex scandal. We have yet to see how she will perform on a larger stage once things heat up.

Untested candidates can win, of course. It’s one reason politics is so fascinating. Herrera is obviously smart and dedicated, and it would be foolish to underestimate her, especially with the Slade Gorton crowd so thoroughly behind her.

But WA-03 is a swing district, not a Republican-leaning district, and anyone who follows politics here knows that. People with names like Baird, Cantwell and Obama have all won here. Craig Pridemore, the state senator from Vancouver who is one of the two major Democratic contenders, won his senate seat in 2004 from long-time incumbent Don Carlson, and 2004 was hardly a banner year for Democrats.

Sure, the national zeitgeist is a huge factor, but that’s true no matter the nominees. Vance sees a GOP tidal wave building, and it’s his right to see what he wishes I suppose. The Republicans have been pushing this “repeat of 1994” stuff since last year, and frankly it’s more than a little wishful thinking on their part. The sad thing is that their noise machine will do everything it can to make it come true, of course, but it’s a long ways to the election and the GOP is not without its own woes, including a lack of money at the national level.

The Tea People have jumped about ten sharks by this point, and Republicans are still the party of nothingness, nihilism and no. Inchoate rage is not a political program, it’s just a tactic, and a pretty low-brow one at that. They still have no real solutions, only tactics and their noise machine. A lot of normal people are on to their game, at long last. That’s why “The Daily Show” is so popular.

And here’s another “riddle me this” for you: if Herrera is such a lock, why does her candidacy require so much lifting by the Slade Gorton crowd?

Conventional wisdom says that an income tax measure would not stand a snowball’s chance in hell of passing Washington voters at the polls. Well, it looks like conventional wisdom is about to be put to the test.

Later this morning a coalition of community leaders led by Bill Gates Sr. will announce their intention to move forward with I-1077, an initiative that would impose a high earners income tax on households earning over $400,000, while reducing the state property tax by 20 percent, and eliminating the B&O tax on many small businesses. Given the history of prior income tax initiatives you can be pretty damn sure that the decision to pursue this one wasn’t taken lightly, and that I-1077’s backers wouldn’t be making this announcement if they weren’t prepared to make a substantial commitment toward its passage.

In other words, I-1077 will qualify for this November’s ballot, and voters will have the opportunity to vote it up or down. And I intend to cover this historic campaign every step of the way.

Tonight there will be special edition of Drinking Liberally, and it’s All About Goldy. That’s right…it’s your chance to donate in person to HA’s blogger-in-chief. And while you’re at it, ask for his autograph.

There will be a special edition of the Podcast as well. It’s your chance to Ask Goldy All About Goldy. Here’s how it works.

For a donation, you can ask Goldy anything you want, and Goldy will “address” your question on the podcast.

Your donation must be something greater than, say, 33 cents…let’s call it five bucks or more. If you’ve donated at least $5, feel free to leave a question for Goldy in the comment thread. This is on the honor system, but please indicate in your comment that you’ve donated. For example:

5. Troll spews:

Okay, okay, I got my mommy to donate to you.

Goldy, have you ever applied for a job at the Seattle Times? HAVE YOU????

6. Mr. Cynical spews:

I donated, so tell me the truth, Goldy. How many ballots did you stuff during the 2004 election?

7. Puddybud spews:

Puddy has tithed to you this week Goldy. Now you must tell Puddy if the libtardo MSM Odumba smear factory is withholding Juan Williams’ jock straps with the tyrannical DUMMOCRAPTS Rahmbot peeps as PuddyResearch proves?

If the notion of leaving a comment in the comment thread is simply too repulsive, email your question to askgoldy@homindiviews.com.

Speaking of asking Goldy…here is a 2008 interview by Cameron Gray, co-host of the POTUS 08 show on XM channel 130, asking Goldy some questions like who financed his trip to Denver for the Democratic National Convention:

[audio:http://podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/denver2_24_aug_2008.mp3]

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. You can join some of us even earlier for dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 353 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

BONUS (Goldy):
I will be bringing with me a limited number of original edition “I-831: Is Tim Eyman a Horse’s Ass?” initiative petitions to tonight’s DL, to which I will be happy to affix my signature in exchange for your signature on a personal check. Get these collectors’ items while they last!

Following up on my previous post, another comment from The Hill’s Aaron Blake caught my eye:

After former GOP governors passed on campaigns in Wisconsin and New York recently, Rossi is the last big prize on the GOP map.

That’s the GOP’s last big prize? A two-time gubernatorial loser, who just a year and half ago lost a 53-47 race to a governor whose approval rating currently stands at 35 percent? Could the GOP bench be any shallower?

And what does all this courtship of Rossi have to say about the other Republicans already in the race? Assuming Rossi doesn’t run (and that’s long been my assumption), how difficult will it be for party leadership to feign enthusiasm for, say, Don Benton or Clint Didier?

And speaking of party leadership, I can’t help but wonder about Washington State Republican Party Chair Luke Esser’s role in all this. Multiple sources confirm that Esser has encouraged Rossi to run against Sen. Patty Murray, and the fundraising numbers make it clear that he’s withheld state party support from the other candidates. Yet even as Rossi’s dithering makes a Republican victory less likely with each passing day, Esser refuses to swing party support behind a candidate who actually wants the nomination.

Why? Well, Esser is a Rob McKenna protege, and the last thing he and his boss want is a gubernatorial primary battle against Rossi in 2012… a bump in the road that would surely be avoided should Rossi run for senate, win or lose.

Forget Rossi v. Murray. Rossi v. McKenna is what these machinations are really about.

The Hill reports that NRSC chair Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is “getting antsy” over Dino Rossi and his supposed indecisiveness about a potential run at Democratic incumbent Sen. Patty Murray.

“I’ve been urging him to make a decision sooner rather than later because there’s a practical problem with not having enough time to do what you need to do before the election.”

Rossi keeps saying he has until the June 11th filing deadline to make up his mind, but with the election barely six months away, every day he delays diminishes his party’s prospects further. So what could possibly be going through Rossi’s head right now?

1. He’s decided to run.
   In which case he’s an idiot for not making it official, organizing a campaign, and starting to raise the millions of dollars necessary to make this race competitive.
2. He’s decided not run.
   In which case he’s an asshole for leaving his party hanging like this. I mean, talking about not being a team player.
3. He’s truly undecided.
   In which case he’s… well… he’s incredibly indecisive. Is this the kinda guy our state really wants to send to the other Washington… the kinda guy who can’t make up his mind whether he even wants to be there?

I’m already on the record suggesting it’s option number two — that he’s simply taking advantage of the attention and publicity in advance of another shot at the governor’s mansion. And Rossi’s comments to The Hill do nothing to change my mind:

“We have four children between nine and 19, so it’s not a casual decision,” he said. “I do have to say that I’ve been to Washington D.C. six times, and I’m not eager to head back into that snake pit.”

Cynical as I am, I don’t find either of those statements disingenuous. In fact, it’s exactly what I observed more than a month ago, when speculation about a possible Rossi senate run first started dominating headlines:

While Rossi would no doubt like to be elected Senator, insiders say he’s not so keen on the idea of running. Nor is serving in the other Washington all that appealing. … [T]he U.S. Senate is a full-time gig that requires tons of travel and the uprooting of one’s family…

Rossi wants to be governor. He believes he won the governor’s mansion in 2004, that it was stolen from him, and that, well, he’s owed it. So not only would the nitty-gritty of serving in the senate be unappealing, but an ass-whooping at the hands of Murray — a third straight statewide defeat — would pretty much end any dreams Rossi has of a triumphant return to Olympia.

So I can’t help but view Rossi’s very public dithering in that context.

Writing elsewhere on The Hill, Aaron Blake wonders if Rossi’s apparent indecisiveness signals the he does not have the “fire in the belly” necessary to run a viable campaign, but I think Rossi still has plenty of  fire… just not for this particular job.

It’s today

As in the last fundraiser, this post isn’t pre-approved by Goldy. I’m proud to write here, and I’m proud to give money every fundraiser (and last year when he said there would be a fundraiser that never materialized). It isn’t the only blog I’ve donated money to, but it’s by far the one I’ve donated the most to. Here’s why:

Even with my poor contribution bringing the quality down, HA is one of the best written blogs around. It’s fearless, fun, wonkish and whimsical. Sometimes all in the same day. Sometimes all in the same post. That’s a lot of work for just about every non open thread post, and there’s work keeping up the quality of the blog over several years. We’ve seen plenty of bloggers on the left and on the right bow out in the years that Goldy has been writing here. I value good writing, and contribute accordingly.

And while it’s true that there is good writing elsewhere on the web, another thing I value about HA is the impact it has here in Washington and in the Seattle/King County area. From Brownie to scaring the AG’s office and the proposed Chihuly museum, Goldy has been moving the narrative nationally — but mostly locally — for years. Sometimes he wins and sometimes he doesn’t. This blog has helped push the dialogue and frame the issues better than most elected officials and pundits in the area.

And having seen only a fraction of the work involved, I know that doesn’t come easily. As a poster here, I’ve been privy to various conversations and email exchanges about how to improve the site. And the back end is a lot of work: Despite being one of the least policed comment threads among blogs, just adhering to the minimum standards takes a good deal of work. There’s a whole host of coding and back end work that you (hopefully) never see, but that keep the blog running well.

Finally, we need an alternative to the mainstream media in general. There are things that the Seattle Times does well, including investigative reporting and, um, being on paper. But their editorials are biased toward the powerful, their print edition is tiny, and their online presence is a joke. The rest of the daily papers and TV news in the state are generally worse. While Goldy and the rest of the crew here do a pretty good job holding the Times’ feet to the fire, the best is when we cover stories where the Times and others drop the ball.

This kind of new media, even done right, may not be as expensive as the old was to create, but it’s by no means free. So please join me in giving to Goldy and keeping HA running.

Does this make you uneasy?

Sharp-eyed readers might have noticed something truly unusual in Gannett’s New Jersey newspapers. A new byline started appearing this month on articles about the New Jersey Devils hockey team, with a note under each piece stating that the author, Eric Marin, is employed by the Devils, not Gannett.

Newspapers struggling to plug the gaps in their newsrooms have been turning to outside organizations to supply articles, raising questions about their ability to vouch for the material they print. At the same time, professional sports teams, trying to make up for declining news coverage, have been hiring journalists for their Web sites.

Yeah sure, it’s only sports. But sports coverage and political coverage have so much in common, both in the character of the coverage and its gradual decline, so… well… it’s only a matter of time. Mark my words: candidates will start covering their own campaigns, and it will end up influencing coverage in the broader, legacy press.

And when that time comes, these professional editors — many of whom routinely dis the kinda activist journalism produced by openly biased bloggers like me — how will they justify this new business model?

“As long as it served our readers and we told them where that content was coming from, the readers were fine with it,” said Hollis Towns, executive editor of The Asbury Park Press, the largest of the state’s six Gannett papers. “I think journalists get hung up on certain lines of what’s ethical more than the readers.”

Welcome to my brave new world.

65 loyal readers have generously contributed $3,440 to the HA Fund Drive so far, plus one cynical donation of $0.33 from our friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics. (I guess sucking off the public teat has only made Stefan even more ungenerous.) Not counting Stefan, that’s an impressive average of almost $53 per contribution, which brings us nearly a quarter of the way toward our $25,000 target when combined with SEIU 775’s $2,500 sponsorship pledge.

Noticeably light on the donor list so far are elected officials and other public figures, so I want to take a moment to reassure folks that I am not operating as a PAC or any other sort of regulated organization, and thus have no disclosure requirements whatsoever. Income from this fund drive will be reported as such to the IRS, but the names of my benefactors will remain confidential.

Is this legal? Absolutely. I’m nothing more than a crowd-funded, independent journalist. It’s a crappy business model, but a business of sorts nonetheless.

Is this ethical? You betcha. I’ve never, ever covered a story as part of a quid pro quo, and never will. Nor have I run away from an issue or an angle out of fear of the consequences, financial or otherwise. Everybody knows my bias, so if you’re one of those politicians or public employees whose candidacy or issues I’m biased towards, and you’d like me to continue in my role helping to shape the public debate, then please show your support by giving generously today.

Anybody else notice that the Seattle Times op/ed page has seemed to moderate a little bit in the wake of the reader backlash generated by their execrable and condescending defense of Rob McKenna’s grandstanding anti-HCR lawsuit?

Now I’m not suggesting that the Times editors consciously adjusted their bias in response to angry emails and canceled subscriptions, but then I’ve never believed that the bulk of media bias is conscious. But the page has seemed a bit more reasonable in recent weeks.

Or maybe, eternal optimist that I am, I’m just seeing what I want to see?