HorsesAss.Org

The headline in the Seattle Times says it all: “Gregoire opposes Seattle officials’ request to rethink 520 bridge.”

Of course she does. As does Judy Clibborn (D-41) and Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10), the respective chairs of the House and Senate transportation committees.

And what do all three elected officials have in common? None of them are from Seattle.

Meanwhile, a bill is meandering through the Legislature that would severely limit cities’ local control over large projects in their district, like, you know, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel, and the 520 bridge.

Of course my gut reaction is to rail against the rest of the state for their “Fuck Seattle” attitude, and the way elected officials outside the city explicitly and implicitly exploit it to their own political advantage. But really, we only have ourselves to blame.

We’re the ones so caught up in the Seattle Way that we can’t ever seem to make a firm decision for fear of pissing off one constituency or another, and we’re the ones who consistently elect perhaps the most anemic political class of any major city in America. Theoretically, the Seattle delegation represents the largest and most powerful political block in the Legislature, and yet they’re either incapable of working together that way, or unwilling to do so out of fear of reinforcing the stereotype that Seattle dominates the state.

Well I’ve got news for you: Seattle should dominate the state! This is where the largest chunk of voters live, and this is where an even larger chunk of the wealth (i.e. tax base) resides. Unlike the goddamn U.S. Senate, we elect all our legislators by the person, not the square mile, and so it’s only fair that our population-dense city gets a disproportionate share of state spending and power.

And yet at a time when two major transportation projects threaten to reshape the city for the next half century or more, we can’t even manage to put one of the transportation committees in the hands of a Seattle legislator. We’re pathetic.

The Seattle Times is earning well-deserved kudos for its three-part exposé of abuse and neglect at adult family homes… which is kinda ironic considering how vociferously its editorial board has opposed an initiative that would require adequate screening, training and certification of long-term-care workers.

Initiative 1029 was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2008, securing 72.5% of the vote statewide, and passing by better than 20-point margins in all 39 counties. According to King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, writing in its defense, the measure was intended to do two simple things:

• It requires FBI criminal-background checks for all long-term-care workers.
• It requires home and community-based long-term-care workers to complete 75 hours of training — the national standards for nursing-home workers — and pass a certification exam to demonstrate basic competence.

Yet despite the glaring need for better qualified long-term-care workers, and the unparalleled popularity of the measure, the Times, our state’s paper of record, urged voters to reject the initiative before the election, and has repeatedly argued for its repeal several times since, including just days after it passed:

Voters’ good, compassionate intentions were abused by the sponsors of Initiative 1029, which purported to ensure higher-quality long-term-care workers for the elderly and people with disabilities.

This measure, which passed handily, is nothing more than an artfully worded ballot measure that belies the bad public policy it is and the serious blow it will give to our state’s troubled budget — about $30 million over the next three years. … The Legislature and the governor should exercise their right to overturn this initiative immediately.

Tim Eyman’s tax-limiting I-960, which passed with a bare 51% of the vote, that the Times argues should be inviolable. But I-1029, the first statewide measure ever draw over 2 million votes… well… voters were hoodwinked or something, so the Legislature should just toss that one right out.

Why? Well, the Times argues that we just can’t afford $28 million over three years for training and certification. Oh, and the Times liked a supposedly “bipartisan” bill better.

But if you read through its several editorials on the subject, one pattern quickly emerges:

“The SEIU spent $650,000 of union funds to promote its proposal as I-1029.”

“Workers already organized would be trained by the SEIU and paid by the state.”

“Then the SEIU drafted this union-building, state budget-busting initiative and played off voters’ good intentions to get a better deal.”

SEIU this, SEIU that. This isn’t about responsible budgeting or a deliberative legislative process — and it certainly isn’t about the welfare and well being of seniors. No, the Times editorial board’s vehement and relentless opposition to I-1029 stems mostly from its vehement and relentless opposition to SEIU, and organized labor in general.

See, if it’s supported by labor, it’s opposed by the Times, the painful, puss-filled, oozing bedsores of neglected seniors be damned.

Online retailing giant Amazon caved to book publisher Macmillan over the weekend, first pulling then restoring their catalog in a dispute over e-book pricing. Not too surprising.

But what really struck me was the statement Amazon issued Sunday afternoon in announcing their capitulation:

“We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books,”

Really? Macmillan has a “monopoly” over their own titles? Isn’t that kinda like saying that McDonald’s has a monopoly over its own burgers, or that, say, Amazon has a monopoly over the sale of its own Kindle devices?

It is a rather startling implication — that there is something wrong with a publisher maintaining monopoly control over its own titles — but not as purely silly or resentful as it may first appear. The sale of goods and e-goods are not the same thing, and this shift away from physical media to online distribution may in fact demand a dramatic rethinking of the traditional relationship between content creators, owners and resellers.

And it will be fascinating to watch how this all works out.

Friday’s post on Kemper Freeman Jr. generated quite a few angry responses from apologists who insisted it was unfair of me to brand the Eastside real estate mogul with his own shameful family history. But if Freeman insists on wielding his wealth and power to influence public policy, I think it only fair and useful to evaluate his words and deeds within a broader historical context.

There is no such thing as a self-made man, and Freeman is arguably less so than others. Inheriting a family fortune built on the suffering of Japanese Americans and the taxpayer largesse that built two floating bridges to his Bellevue real estate holdings, Freeman’s own business investments can be seen as a continuation of a development strategy first laid out by his father and grandfather decades earlier. This is the family that raised and trained him, and from whom he clearly inherited the auto-centric/anti-rail philosophy that drives his civic participation. So why should his family history be ignored when attempting to discern Freeman’s personal motives?

Of course, I don’t raise these issues merely to fling poo at someone with whom I disagree politically (although I must admit that it can be pleasantly cathartic), but rather to chip away at the undeserved credibility Freeman appears to enjoy on transportation planning issues. The fact is, Freeman and his family have prospered handsomely from the public subsidy of our automobile culture, and thus his vehement pro-roads/anti-rail advocacy must be understood in that context. Likewise, as the great-grandson of a Confederate veteran and the grandson of the president of the Anti-Japanese League, it is only reasonable to explore the roots of Freeman’s passionate opposition to allowing South Seattle rail riders convenient access to his exclusive Bellevue properties.

Again, this all comes down to credibility. If his credibility largely stems from his personal wealth, then the circumstances of his wealth are fair game. But if his credibility is supposedly based on merit, then that should be evaluated too.

For example, my first introduction to Freeman came shortly after I began blogging in 2004, while covering Initiative 883, the Freeman backed measure that would have opened up HOV lanes to single occupancy vehicles, while diverting money from transit and other programs to build more highway lanes. After spending $350,000 on the campaign, 90% of it his own money, Freeman abruptly pulled the plug on the initiative just weeks before the petition filing deadline. The campaign told the Seattle Times that it had collected about half the 197,000 required signatures, but even that is surely an exaggeration.

So how do you spend that much money on a signature drive, and yet fall so far short of the mark? Well, you do it by spending your money very poorly.

According to PDC reports, over the course of its several month signature drive, I-883 spent only $92,000 on “voter signature gathering” (enough for maybe 60,000 signatures, tops), compared to $180,000 on “management/consulting services.” That’s gotta be the most inefficient signature campaign I have ever seen.

To put this in perspective, were Freeman put in charge of our region’s transportation budget, and he managed it as efficiently as he managed the I-883 campaign, for every $1 billion we spent constructing new roads, we’d spend an additional $2 billion on management and consulting fees.

So much for the private sector being more efficient than the public.

I mean, any idiot can successfully run a well financed signature drive (you know who you are, Tim), and yet Freeman couldn’t even manage that. And this is the guy who routinely attacks our regional transportation planning as wasteful and inefficient?

So if Freeman’s perceived credibility on transportation planning doesn’t come from merit, and it doesn’t come from any particular expertise on, you know, transportation planning (former State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald labeled some of Freeman’s proposals “wacky“), where does it come from? Apparently, simply by virtue of him being Kemper Freeman Jr.

And that’s all the more reason to make every effort to put Freeman’s advocacy in its proper context.

Speaking of investigative reporting, Michael Hood’s got the first of a two part series up on BlatherWatch, exposing former KVI host Peter Wiessbach’s exploitive janitorial business.

It’s an insight into how sleazy operators like Weissbach use illegals. Business always claims American workers won’t do such lowly work, but this demonstrates that some employers give preference to the undocumented.

SBM systematically hired and exploited workers who, because of legal status complied in fear of losing their jobs or being detained and deported.

Janitors who questioned or complained about these practices were summarily fired- as were such managers- after first being frozen out of the management loop.

An ex-manager describes workers with so little English he needed take another worker away from his work to translate the manager’s instructions. When he asked HR asked why he couldn’t get anyone who speaks English, he was told: “[We] don’t hire those kind of people. [We] only hire illegals who mainly speak very little- if any- English.”

Just to be clear, not all conservative talk hosts are exploitive, hypocritical scumbags. They may be 99% wrong 99% of the time, but personally, I’ve never met a KVI host I didn’t like. Then again, I’ve never met Wiessbach.

Personally, I don’t look to the Seattle Times for this kinda stuff anymore. Like most people today, I purchase most of my seniors on Craigslist.

(All snark aside, if there’s anything that makes daily newspapers essential, it’s investigative reporting like this.)

On Friday, Slog reported that an income tax initiative had been filed, prompting the following commentary from the Secretary of State’s office:

“You cannot have a graduated state income tax without amending the state constitution. The court has been clear on that,” says Dave Ammons, spokesman for the Secretary of State.

To which I have two main responses. First, the Washington State Supreme Court last explicitly ruled on this issue way back in 1933; our current slate of Supreme Court justices have never addressed this issue, and as the precedent flouting majority on the U.S. Supreme Court recently demonstrated, the opinions of the current justices are the only ones that matter. Second — and I mean this with all due respect to Dave Ammons, Secretary of State Sam Reed and the rest his office — it’s none of their fucking business.

To elaborate on my second point first, up until the moment the petitions are filed, the Secretary of State’s role in the initiative process is purely administrative, and even then the grounds for rejecting petitions are quite limited, so I can’t help but wonder why Ammons would comment on the measure’s constitutionality at all? I don’t remember Reed’s office commenting on the constitutionality of any of Tim Eyman’s initiatives. Hell, I’ve seen the SOS quietly process initiatives that don’t even amount to a complete sentence.

So while I’ve no doubt that Reed personally opposes an income tax, his office has no business nor expertise in commenting on its constitutionality.

Which brings us back to my first point, the constitutional question itself. I’ve written extensively on this subject, most recently highlighting this excerpt from the Washington State Tax Structure Committee report:

[T]here is ample reason to believe that a modern income tax, established by the Legislature or by the voters, would now be upheld. The basic reason is that [Culliton v. Chase] was based on an earlier Washington case which the State Supreme Court clearly misread. More importantly, the earlier case was based on a line of United States Supreme Court cases that have subsequently been reversed. Our Court would likely take a “clean slate” approach to the income tax today.

See that? Courts sometimes overturn earlier decisions, both old and new. Indeed, the SCOTUS just overturned a century of precedent on campaign finance law — precedent it had upheld as recently as seven years ago — so it’s kinda silly to dismiss a state income tax as patently unconstitutional based on a 77-year-old 5-4 decision that has left Washington with a legal definition of “income” that is at odds with virtually every other court in the nation, state and federal.

Furthermore, if you read the text of the proposed initiative, it becomes instantly clear that the authors have bent over backwards to accommodate the bizarre semantics that constitute our state’s current legal framework on the subject — one which, for example, allows the state to levy a nonuniform business tax on gross revenue, but not on net revenue (i.e., income). Aping the language of our existing Business & Occupation tax, the measure attempts to levy a 5% “excise tax” on joint adjusted gross incomes over $400,000 a year (9% on the portion over $1 million), while simulating exemptions by redefining the tax otherwise due as a “credit.”

Split hairs all you want, but it’s hard to understand how a reasonable person could define gross personal income as property but gross business income as not. That’s a distinction without a difference that could just as easily give today’s court the grounds to invalidate our existing B&O tax as it would the income tax this initiative proposes.

But all that is neither here nor there. The Secretary of State’s job at the moment is merely to assign the initiative a number, and transmit it back and forth between the sponsor, the Code Reviser and the Attorney General. If petitions are ultimately filed, his job will be to count and verify the signatures, and if the signature threshold is met, his next and final task will be to assure that the initiative properly appears on the ballot. At no point is the question of the measure’s constitutionality of any official concern to the Secretary of State or his spokesman.

As for the Attorney General, his job would be to defend the measure in court should it ultimately pass and be challenged, thus any effort on his part to publicly question the initiative’s constitutionality would present a conflict of interest that could undermine his ability fulfill his own office’s constitutional duties.

Indeed, as I’ve previously written, the whole constitutional question is a red herring intended to quash public debate on this very important issue. And that is the context within which Ammons’ comment should be understood.

Last week’s contest was won by Dave Gibney. It was Calexico, California.

This week’s is a challenge. If no one gets this by Monday morning, I’ll post up a clue. Good luck!

Psalm 137:9
Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!

Discuss.

As a follow-up to Goldy’s post below, there’s already a group organizing an initiative for Washington. It’s called Sensible Washington and they expect to release the final wording of their initiative and begin signature gathering by March 1. Their initiative is not expected to specify the state liquor stores as the distributors, but will only legalize possession for adults. The state would then be on the hook for setting up regulations for where and how it can be sold.

One of the concerns of legalization advocates (both Goldy and I share this concern) is that there won’t be enough money to collect the necessary signatures. As the top post at Sensible Washington points out, PayPal has a history of freezing the accounts of drug law reform groups, and banks won’t work with them. I’d be curious to know how much of this results from archaic rules and misconceptions about drug law reform, and how much comes from potential crackdowns from the federal government. As for Paypal, one clue might be that one of its founders considers the era of alcohol prohibition as the last great era of American politics (I guess that makes him a libertarian).

So for now, they’re taking mail-in donations before a volunteer army of signature gatherers hit the ground across the state to put this initiative on the ballot. There’s certainly enthusiasm for drug law reform right now, but no one is really sure whether it will be enough to qualify. I guess we’re about to find out.

UPDATE (Goldy):
As an followup to Lee’s followup, Sensible Washington’s account of their difficulties in securing credit card processing is worth a read. On the one hand, if millionaire investment banker Michael Dunmire wants an initiative on the ballot, he just writes Tim Eyman a check; on the other hand, if a group of grassroots activists wants to raise money online from small contributors, the banks won’t give them a merchant account, out of fear of I don’t know what.

So much for “direct democracy.”

That said, I emailed the folks at Sensible Washington earlier today to suggest that they set up an account with ActBlue, the same progressive online fundraising site through which we collectively raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Darcy Burner. ActBlue is now set up to handle state legislative and initiative campaigns in Washington state, in addition to federal races, a feature that R-71 made good use of last year.

Marijuana legalization appears headed to the ballot in California, after initiative organizers turned 700,000 petition signatures, well above the 433,000 required.

If California voters approve, it will be the most comprehensive reform of marijuana laws ever undertaken in the United States. While some states, such as Oregon, have relatively lax penalties for possession, no state has attempted to regulate and tax the herb before.

The measure’s chances are good: A poll taken last April found that 56 percent of Californians want to see the herb legalized and taxed.

According to the L.A. Times, the measure would make it legal for anyone over 21 to own an ounce or less of pot, and to grow pot for personal use in a space no larger than 25 square feet. It would also give cities the right to license marijuana growers and sellers, and to collect taxes on the crop.

Give me half a million dollars to buy the signatures, and I could get a similar measure on the 2010 ballot here in Washington, although I would prefer a measure that relies on our existing state store system to handle sales and distribution. In fact, I’d actually be a pretty good figurehead for the campaign, as I don’t actually use the stuff myself.

Pot prohibition has proven costly, unworkable and counterproductive, and the state could really use the revenue legalization would produce. At the risk of prompting the obvious retort, legalization is really a no-brainer.

I know it’s kinda hip to complain about Rep. Jim McDermott, even amongst local Democrats. But everytime I find myself sitting in a room with him, listening to him speak, I’m reminded why I’m not one of these whiners.

It’s common knowledge that state Sen. Pam Roach (R-Auburn) doesn’t exactly have a reputation for working and playing well with others, but Jesus… how disruptive do you have to be, to be too disruptive to fit in with the Party of No?

State Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, has been banned from the Senate Republican caucus after colleagues told her she has repeatedly mistreated staff and should get counseling to manage her anger.

A letter sent to Roach by Senate GOP leaders said an internal investigation had concluded “it would be best to physically separate you from the caucus staff and from other Republican Senators while we are working on the floor.”

Anger management counseling? I’m guessing that really pissed her off!

And I’m not sure you want to piss off Pam Roach. Well known for pulling a gun on an aide, and widely rumored to have been the tipster behind the Spokesman-Review’s sting of boy-trolling then-Mayor and former state Sen. Jim West, it’s no surprise that even her fellow Republicans are so afraid of their colleague that they’ve all but filed for a restraining order.

All of which is a welcome opportunity for a replay of Roach’s famous “Roses” speech.

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/roses.mp3]

Always brings tears to my eyes.

Oh, and coincidentally, I received an email today from Ron Weigelt, announcing his attention to challenge Roach for her 31st District seat. Don’t know anything about him, but he’d have to be awfully damn crazy to out-crazy Roach.

Isn’t it funny how when Washington voters, by whatever slim margin, pass one of Tim Eyman’s tax cutting initiatives, the editors at the Seattle Times applaud their wisdom and argue that it would be an unconscionable violation of the will of the people to amend or overturn said measure, even years later?

See, anti-tax/anti-government initiatives, that’s direct democracy at its finest. But when voters approve a tax increase, well, not so much…

Even the most avid referendum supporter will admit the limitation of the process is it asks a simple up-or-down question. In the case of the two measures, the questions could be boiled down to: “Would you like to raise taxes on someone other than yourself?”

No wonder Oregon voters said yes by a margin of roughly 54 percent for both proposals.

Shorter Seattle Times: stupid voters.