HorsesAss.Org

I agree with Danny Westneat:

Let me repeat what he said, because you don’t hear it often: We don’t mind some reasonable tax increase.

I think that’s true. I’d guess people want to see more cutting, first. But they also would rather pay a little more, across the board, than see the schools or safety net or criminal-justice system go all to hell.

So, legislators, just do that.

Even with one of the highest state tobacco taxes in the nation, I don’t mind seeing it rise a little higher. Smoking is a dangerous habit that shortens lives and costs businesses and government billions of dollars in lost productivity and higher health care expenses. Increase the cost of smoking and fewer people will smoke; that’s a clear social benefit.

But as a primary means of addressing our state’s interminable budget crisis, well, that’s just plain cowardly and dumb.

Legislators love to over-rely on sin taxes because they tend be relatively politically palatable, but they’re also the most regressive, and by far. A $3.00 tax on a $1.00 cigar translates to a rate of 300%, whereas it only amounts to a 10% tax on a luxury cigar that would otherwise retail for $30.00. It’s easy to figure out which income groups are impacted the most by such a tax.

But just as importantly, from a budgetary perspective, sin tax increases just don’t produce enough revenue, and simply aren’t sustainable.

One of the arguments in favor of increasing tobacco taxes is that higher costs decrease consumption, undoubtedly a social good, but that also means that from a revenue perspective, higher taxes also produce diminishing returns. Combined with the fact that the real-dollar-value of unit-based excise taxes inevitably decreases over time as it is eaten away by inflation, and the economics simply don’t allow for the state to wring significant new revenues from an already highly taxed commodity.

So while from a social engineering perspective I’ve got nothing against raising tobacco taxes, Democratic legislators who think that this might somehow answer constituent demands for new revenue to fill a significant portion of the state’s current $2.6 billion revenue deficit, well, they’re smoking something else entirely.

On the heels of last year’s devastating all-cuts budget, another mostly-cuts budget simply isn’t a reasonable alternative to anybody interested in maintaining a level of government services and investment necessary to sustain the quality of life in Washington state, while moving our economy forward. And even if Washington receives the additional $700 million in one-time federal funds Gov. Gregoire’s proposals anticipate, that would do nothing to address the budget crisis looming in the next biennium.

As politically painful and unpopular as it may appear to be, legislators need to start debating a broader based tax increase that can produce significant new revenue now, and for the foreseeable future. And barring the courage (and time) to wade into the billions of dollars a year in under- and non-producing tax exemptions, the only realistic option for substantial short term revenue is a general sales tax increase, and/or an expansion thereof to additional goods and services.

A general sales tax increase and/or expansion must be on the table this session, and by “on the table” I mean publicly discussed and debated. Yes, this too would be regressive, an impact that could be partly addressed by fully implementing the Working Families Tax Credit. But at the same time we’re talking about a sales tax increase, we also seriously need to discuss and debate an income tax as part of any long term solution.

A bold, courageous and creative Legislature could simultaneously pass both a sales tax increase and the income tax that would supplant it. For example, a temporary, half cent increase in the state portion of the sales tax from 6.5% to 7.0% would generate an additional $500 million a year in new revenue almost immediately, but a high-earners income tax, which would take at least a year to implement and muddle through the inevitable constitutional challenge, could replace the sales tax increase while impacting only the top two percent of households. Raise the income tax a little higher, and we could even knock the state sales tax down to 6% or less.

There are budget solutions beyond endless cutting and praying for federal bailouts. We just need a few legislators willing to lead the way.

This week, both of the progressive marijuana bills introduced in the State House this session were voted down by the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Committee. This wasn’t a terribly surprising outcome, as the Committee continues to be led by former police officer Chris Hurst (D-Enumclaw), who killed the decriminalization bill last year as well. Despite the outcome, having an actual legalization bill introduced was another big step forward towards ending the disastrous prohibition of marijuana.

Making that even more clear are the results of a SurveyUSA poll, which finds that 56% of Washington adults think that legalizing marijuana is a good idea (vs. only 36% who think it’s a bad idea). On top of that, the only demographic that remains strongly opposed is the 65 and over crowd. Even among those aged 50-64, SurveyUSA found that 63% think legalizing marijuana is a good idea. And even in Eastern Washington, they found that 52% think it’s a good idea.

Those numbers alone won’t make the laws change though. It still requires either the legislature and the Governor to care about overwhelming public support for reforming the laws (not going to happen any time soon), or it will take a voter initiative. On the latter front, Sensible Washington is gearing up for the 2010 ballot with an initiative to remove the criminal penalties for marijuana. According to Sensible Washington, they aim to have the initiative language hammered out by March 1, and will be collecting signatures through July. They need over 240,000 to qualify for the November ballot.

What ends up being the most frustrating aspect of this effort, though, is that there simply isn’t a sensible reason for Democrats in this state (or in other more progressive states) to get on board. In fact, Ben Morris makes this connection with respect to the defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Coakley was a vocal opponent of the decriminalization initiative that Massachusetts voters approved by almost a 2 to 1 margin. Yet everyone was scratching their head as to why progressives and young voters didn’t show up to vote for her.

Whether Democrats like it or not, drug law reform is part of the “change” that people want right now. And while drug policy isn’t as high profile an issue as health care or job creation, the frames that exist to drive voters perceptions of candidates are often greatly influenced by things like a vocal opposition to a commonsense drug policy measure – especially for young people, for whom the issue is often far simpler to grasp. It’s really hard to convince young people that Martha Coakley is the person you need to vote for to bring about “change” after she spent 2008 supporting absurd reefer madness crusades in an attempt to defeat the ballot measure. The fact that Democrats even here in Washington can’t look at these polls and put 2 and 2 together doesn’t make me very optimistic about their chances this November.

UPDATE: Seattle Weekly has a Q&A with Douglas Hiatt of Sensible Washington.

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky, who got the correct answer of Fort Washington, MD.

This week’s contest was suggested by a reader (who is not allowed to win). :)

This might be harder than it looks, good luck!

1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Discuss.

A longtime reader writes TPM with their personal sob story:

My story: My father is dying of Huntington’s disease. Before he dies in 8 to 10 years, he will need anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and drugs that fight dementia and his tremors and convulsions. He’ll need multiple brain scans and physical therapy sessions.

Current medical treatments can’t save him, but they will give him a few more years before the slow death strips him of his memories, personality and control of his body.

There’s a 50 percent chance the same slow motion death awaits me and each of my three siblings. If I ever lose my job I’ll become uninsurable, permanently. My sister already lost her insurance.

That means whatever treatment is developed for Huntington’s will be unavailable to us. There’s simply no way we could afford it. Not only high tech gene therapies or other interventions, but the medications and treatments that exist now that would buy us enough time to see our kids’ graduations or weddings, and would give them hope of not suffering their grandfather’s fate.

For all of its faults, the Senate version of the health care bill includes provisions that would prevent health insurance companies from denying such people coverage, or canceling their policies. The House could pass this bill as-is, and send it to the President to sign. Or, they could start the reform effort over from scratch and attempt to negotiate with the 41 Republicans in the Senate, who have already said that they would not support such provisions.

After all, most of us did not make the poor personal choice to be born to a father with a terrible hereditary disease like Huntington’s, so really, why should we or insurance company shareholders be asked to share the costs? That would be socialism, right?

[via TP]

The Seattle Times editorial board argues for “Zero tolerance for cyberbullies,” and while I’d agree that schools have rarely taken bullying nearly seriously enough, just the mention of the phrase “zero tolerance” gives me the willies.

McClure, like all Seattle Public Schools, has a zero-tolerance bullying policy. Cruel remarks and threats posted online may be someone’s idea of free speech but they violate school safety policies.

In recent rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that students don’t currently enjoy First Amendment protections even for off-campus speech (unless, of course, they incorporate), an unfortunate precedent that has emboldened school officials in the exercise of their authority. And as a former student myself, I just don’t trust that kind of authority.

First we had zero tolerance for drugs, a policy under which a 13-year-old girl could be strip-searched on suspicion of bringing ibuprofen to school. Then we had zero tolerance for weapons, a policy that inevitably lead to a 14-year-old girl being expelled from school for accidentally bringing in a butter knife.

Really. A butter knife.

And now we want zero tolerance on speech?

As ridiculous as the two examples above are, a pill is a pill and a knife is a knife, and I suppose if you want to be an asshole or an idiot about it, both violate the schools’ zero tolerance policies, and well, a rule is a rule. But if even things as concrete and well defined as physical objects can be taken out of context, just imagine the mess school officials can make applying a zero tolerance policy to words.

No context, no subtext, no reading between the lines unless school officials choose to read between the lines, regardless of what the student really meant. If a teacher overhears a student responding to abuse in kind, that’s a violation of the zero tolerance policy, regardless of whether the real bully was the unheard instigator. And if a school official chooses to misinterpret the typically cruel, mutually abusive teenage banter that often passes between friends, that’s a violation of the zero tolerance policy too.

Do I want schools to crack down on bullying? Absolutely. But do I want my own daughter to be subjected to a zero tolerance policy on something as inherently subjective as speech? Hell no!

A zero tolerance policy is the lazy way out of a complex social problem. It’s the cowardly way out. And it’s no excuse for diminishing the rights of students any further.

About two years ago, coyotes started to become a frequent sighting in Seward Park, and cats started disappearing from the surrounding neighborhood. I saw the “lost cat” posters popping up on nearby telephone poles, and heard the grisly stories of mangled cat parts found scattered through nearby yards, but living almost a mile from the park and just couple blocks up the hill from busy Rainier Avenue, I didn’t pay it that much attention… until our cat nearly fell victim to an apparent coyote attack.

Shortly thereafter a coyote casually crossed our path less than fifty feet ahead of us on a trail in Seward Park, in the middle of the day. And only about six months ago, I drove up to my house around dusk, just in time to see a coyote stroll out of my yard and down the sidewalk. (Fortunately, our cat was safely indoors at the time.) Meanwhile, lost kitty posters continue to be a mainstay on neighborhood telephone polls, along with the occasional flyer bemoaning a missing small dog.

When neighbors have called animal control to complain about the perceived threat (real threat, if you’re a cat), they’ve generally gotten the same muted response. Coyotes are part of a natural, healthy, urban landscape, and the city has no plans to trap or kill them. We should celebrate their beauty… and keep our cats safely indoors.

So I was a bit surprised to read that authorities have decided to hunt and kill the coyotes that have recently been making the news in Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood:

The state has identified two problem coyotes. “We’ve had some unsettling reports of aggression,” he said. “There’s been lost pets, small dogs and cats, and this has caused us some concern.”

Uh-huh. So why is it that lost pets in Magnolia are such a concern to local officials, yet lost pets in Southeast Seattle are not? What… my cat’s life isn’t as valuable as the life of a Magnolia cat? Is it because of where we live? Is it because he’s black?

Southeast Seattle residents have long complained about getting the short end of the stick when it comes to city services compared to our North end counterparts, and this sort of double-standard doesn’t help. I’ve closely followed the coyote reports coming out of Magnolia, and they’re no different from what’s going on down here. Small pets fall prey to the Seward Park coyotes on a regular basis, and I can testify from my personal encounters that the coyotes showed little fear at my presence. Yet for some reason the Magnolia complaints seem to be taken more seriously.

Personally, I agree with the advice we’ve received from animal control. The coyotes are beautiful to watch, and I take great pleasure in seeing wildlife thrive within such an urban setting. We’re a lot more careful with our cat these days, who no longer spends the nights prowling outdoors… though that probably has more to do with his own changing 11-year-old habits than with our discipline. The coyotes have also performed a notable service, effectively controlling a rabbit population in Seward Park that had threatened to grow out of control without predation.

If city or state authorities proposed trapping and relocating the Seward Park coyotes, I doubt there’d be much opposition from local residents, but hunting and killing them? That just seems a bit extreme, considering the minimal level of threat they pose. Fortunately, I doubt it will come to that, as clearly, our concerns aren’t taken nearly as seriously as those of Magnolia and other North end neighborhoods.

UPDATE:
One of the Magnolia coyotes was trapped and killed this morning on BNSF property.

He said the coyote was caught in a leg trap about 5 a.m. today and was euthanized with a shot to the head.

Caught in a leg trap and then shot in the head. How humane.

FYI, this is what a dead, snared coyote looks like:

And this is what that coyote looked like back when it was puppy.

22-year-old Rebecca Solomon was passing through security at Philadelphia International Airport, when a TSA worker motioned her toward him.

Then he pulled a small, clear plastic bag from her carry-on – the sort of baggie that a pair of earrings might come in. Inside the bag was fine, white powder.

She remembers his words: “Where did you get it?”

Two thoughts came to her in a jumble: A terrorist was using her to sneak bomb-detonating materials on the plane. Or a drug dealer had made her an unwitting mule, planting coke or some other trouble in her bag while she wasn’t looking.

She’d left her carry-on by her feet as she handed her license and boarding pass to a security agent at the beginning of the line.

Answer truthfully, the TSA worker informed her, and everything will be OK.

Solomon, 5-foot-3 and traveling alone, looked up at the man in the black shirt and fought back tears.

Put yourself in her place and count out 20 seconds. Her heart pounded. She started to sweat. She panicked at having to explain something she couldn’t.

Now picture her expression as the TSA employee started to smile.

Just kidding, he said. He waved the baggie. It was his.

No biggie. He was just kidding. In fact, he was training other TSA workers how to detect contraband. The fact that he reduced this poor woman to tears, well, I guess that’s the kinda sacrifice we all have to make to win this war on terror.

But now that I know that TSA workers have such a great sense of humor, I’ll have to perpetrate a practical joke of my own the next time I go through airport security.

Air America Radio shut off its microphones today and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It will continue to provide affiliates with “encore” programming through 9PM Monday, January 25, at which time its programming will end for good.

I suppose you could call Air America a failure, and from a business perspective it certainly was. It never operated in the black, and seemed to be in the midst of financial and management turmoil since before it launched in April of 2004.

But it helped catapult Al Franken into the U.S. Senate, and launched a then unknown Rachel Maddow on the path toward her own show on MSNBC, and will leave behind dozens of thriving progressive talk stations nationwide. And without the ecosystem that Air America spawned, Ed Schultz and other successful progressive talkers might never have had the opportunity to reach a national audience.

That’s a pretty impressive legacy, and one for which I at least am grateful.

Just to be absolutely clear, I think it is safe to argue that if there’s one thing on which a majority of Americans agree, it’s that corporations don’t have nearly enough influence in state, local and national politics. So we should all thank the courageous justices of the United States Supreme Court for correcting this imbalance.

If there is a Republican wave building momentum heading into the 2010 election, our state GOP caucus seems intent on doing everything possible to sink its own ship. First they kicked off the session with a parade of tentherist nonsense, and now they’re repeating Dino Rossi’s single biggest mistake from the 2008 gubernatorial election by introducing a bill that would reduce Washington’s minimum wage.

I mean, are they stupid, or what?

Yeah, sure, the last thing our state’s families need in the midst of this crappy economy is a cut in wages, but that simple logic aside, as a political strategy, this bill is just plain dumb. Voters overwhelmingly approved our current minimum wage statute via a citizens initiative, and it was Rossi’s public support for the notion of reducing the minimum wage that proved a turning point in the election, and provided Gov. Gregoire with one of her most potent political attacks.

As long as Republicans continue to stick to this losing strategy, it’s hard to imagine them seriously threatening the Democrats’ legislative majorities.

Of course, I’m not plotting to blow up the Supreme Court, despite the intentionally provocative headline, and anybody who would believe for moment that such constitutes an actual threat is a complete and utter idiot. But I wonder if the Republican majority on the Court who just voted to gut our campaign finance laws by throwing out a century of precedent, respect my right to free speech as much as they respect that of corporations?

No doubt there are some of you out there who believe this headline crosses a line for which I should be subject to criminal penalties. After all, to maintain a safe and civil society the First Amendment cannot possibly be absolute; you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and all that. And yet I’m guessing that that those of you who would relish the thought of armed federal agents kicking down my door in the middle of night in response to a mere rhetorical device, are the same folks who are cheering the Court’s 5-4 decision to protect corporate America’s unfettered First Amendment right to corrupt our government through unlimited political spending.

No, I’m not plotting to blow up the Supreme Court, nor do I support or encourage such a radical revisionist agenda, because unlike the Court’s Republican majority, I actually respect the institution. But I fear for a nation whose highest court consistently grants money more free speech rights than speech itself.

I guess you get the Supreme Court you pay for:

In a ruling that radically reshapes campaign-finance law, the Supreme Court has struck down a key campaign-finance restriction that bars corporations and unions from pouring money into political ads.

The long-awaited 5-4 ruling, in the Citizens United v. FEC case, presents advocates of regulation with a major challenge in limiting the flow of corporate money into campaigns, and potentially opens the door for unrestricted amounts of corporate money to flow into American politics.

Good thing too, because if anybody is a victim in our current political system, it’s corporations. Good thing they’ll finally get their voices heard.

This site is preventing me from writing anything more substantial today.

UPDATE: SAFER, a popular Colorado-based marijuana law reform group that has run a number of initiatives, is launching a boycott of Starbucks over their support for an anti-marijuana law enforcement group that promotes and glorifies violence.