HorsesAss.Org

Whatever the outcome of budget negotiations in the coming legislative session, local school districts shouldn’t expect any additional state funding coming their way. In fact, even with new revenue added to the equation, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an additional bite taken out of K-12 education as the legislature struggles to balance a $2.6 billion shortfall in the last year of our current two-year budget.

What seems increasingly likely however, is a temporary or even permanent lift in the state imposed local school levy lid, that currently limits local, voter-approved school levies to a maximum of 24% of a district’s operating budget, or as high as 33% for a handful of districts that were grandfathered in at a higher rate. The logic is that with state funding in short supply, local districts should be able to ask local voters to make up the difference.

At the same time, I also expect the governor and legislature to yield to pressure to save “levy-equalization” payments, state funds that go to “property poor” districts to help offset their residents’ inability (or unwillingness) to raise adequate local school levies. Individual, one can make rational arguments for and against both lifting the levy lid, and maintaining levy-equalization, but combined, I fear that the policies will only serve to undermine broad support for state K-12 funding over the long term.

Why? Consider the rational self-interest of a Mercer Island parent and taxpayer. Freed from the shackles of the school levy lid, the Mercer Island School District can now raise all the money it needs and wants, with little if any concern for what goes on in Olympia. Even better, all of the additional money raised locally is kept local; not a dime goes to subsidizing education in less affluent districts.

Now consider the rational self-interest of taxpayers in those “property-poor” districts. These are the same parts of the state that generally oppose new taxes, and support tax cuts… a statewide voting block that makes it nearly impossible to fund K-12 education at adequate levels. Yet despite their steady opposition to new state taxes, and their lack of support for local levies, they get the levy-equalization payments nonetheless. It might be unfair to say that the state is rewarding them for failing to raise school funds locally, but such anti-tax sentiment certainly appears to come at little cost. I mean, why should residents vote to raise their own taxes at either the state or local level, if they think their schools are going to get the money regardless?

Like I said, rational self-interest. And it’s hard to see how either lid-lifts or levy-equalization provide much incentive for voters in both wealthy and poor districts to support statewide funding for K-12 education.

If, on the other hand, these less affluent districts feared their levy-equalization payments might get cut off, they might be more supportive of statewide revenue increases that could stave off such an educational calamity. And if the residents of affluent districts continue to have the quality of their children’s education somewhat tied to that of the state as a whole, they too will remain advocates for adequate statewide K-12 funding.

For all the legitimate criticisms one can make of K-12 funding in Washington state, it still remains far more equitable than that of my native Pennsylvania, were the state/local funding formula is reversed, and thus the quality of your education is largely determined by the property tax base of the school district in which you are raised. And when it comes to equity, it would be a shame for our current budget crisis to permanently push us in the wrong direction.

There’s a lot of blame being spread around for the watered-down, pro-industry/anti-consumer/anti-woman health care bill coming out of the Senate.

Some people blame President Obama for not providing more leadership. Some blame Senators Nelson and Lieberman for intentionally gumming up the works, and some even blame the Republicans for their obstructionist strategies. But me… I blame the voters of Connecticut and Maine.

These are states that could have elected Democratic senators, but didn’t. Instead they elected “moderate” Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and “Lieberman for Lieberman” candidate Joe Lieberman. But in a party that prides itself on rigid discipline above all else, there is no such thing as a “moderate” Republican, and thus the Maine and Connecticut voters essentially guaranteed two votes against health care reform, and one for the interests of the insurance industry. It’s the voters’ fault.

Whereas with Sen. Nelson of Nebraska, for example, you pretty much get the kinda senator you’d expect to get from Nebraska, with the notable exception of that little “D” next to his name.

The moral is, while Democrats can prove to be frustratingly independent and self-destructive, a Republican is a Republican is a Republican. Had Maine and Connecticut put Democrats in the Senate, the Republican minority wouldn’t be able to use the filibuster to hold the rest of the nation hostage. But they can, and they have.

Elections have consequences.

Shit sandwich, cooked in the world’s most exclusive club, by the most exclusive shit chefs in the world.

Whatever. We’re likely all teabaggers in the end. Viva la shit. Be careful and don’t get hurt or sick.

“And I think if you’re going to get on your feet and debate, and make assertions, you should really be familiar with the content of the bill”
– Minnesota Senator Al Franken, while handing South Dakota Senator John Thune his own ass.

A few links to share while I root for Chad Ochocinco and Vernon Davis to keep my fantasy season going.

– Pete Guither catches the New York Times sanitizing a story on Mexico’s violent drug war. This comes while the Washington Post and reporter Ashley Halsey III are still digging in their heels after being caught passing along completely imaginary statistics fed to them by the drug czar.

– Josh Feit points out that Larry Haler (R-8) has introduced a bill to overturn the state’s voter-approved medical marijuana law. One can only imagine what the voters of the 8th LD would think if the federal government passed a strict gun ownership ban, the voters of Washington passed an initiative that restored gun ownership rights, and then a Seattle legislator introduced a bill to overturn that voter initiative. Yet I’m sure people will still vote for Larry Haler next year because he believes in liberty, or something.

– Barbara Coombs-Lee has another follow-up on the attempt by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ to override individuals’ advance directives at their many hospitals and health care facilities around the country. Despite the protestations by certain local commenters, I’m still not aware of any Catholic facility in Washington state that will refuse the order and respect the living wills of individuals who come under their care.

– Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) is in a bit of trouble now that his main spokesman, Chris Hightower, had to resign after he was caught with some seriously racist stuff on his MySpace page. [via the General]

Last week’s contest was won by wes.in.wa. It was Indian Harbor Beach, Florida.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Forgive a proud father for kvelling, but congratulations to the Mount Baker/Lakewood Supremes for their dominating performance in the SYSA city tournament this year, where they outscored opponents 19 to 1 over five games in the Girls U13 division.  Yesterday’s championship game was a tough physical match, but the Supremes saved their best play for the tournament, and only seemed to get better as it went on.

Also, a big thanks to the folks at SYSA, the neighborhood clubs, and Seattle Parks and Recreation for making all this possible. I’m sure this is a memory the girls will long cherish.

Seattle’s mayor-elect supports House Bill 2401:

“I actually took this position during the campaign and nobody noticed. It was an answer to the question in the Stranger’s election land,” McGinn said. “If every elected official who ever smoked marijuana voted to legalize it would probably be legalized in an instant. We recognize that, like alcohol, it’s something that should be regulated not treated as a criminal activity and I think that’s where the citizens of Seattle want us to go.”

For quite some time, Darryl has been urging me to do something about longtime troll Marvin Stamn, who appeared to be spamming the open threads with links to right-wing sites. Well, today was the final straw, as Stamn essentially admitted to such:

34. Politically Incorrect spews:
Marvin,
Give it a rest.

Can’t. I’m making a couple extra bucks propagandizing today.

Well, no more. The purpose of the open threads is to give the HA community — even the hateful trolls — the opportunity to talk about whatever they want, without driving the other comment threads off topic. The purpose is not to provide a handy (and profitable) tool for upping the Google ranking of right-wing sites.

So Stamn, who has apparently been making more money off my blog than I have, has joined the execrable JCH as only the second commenter to be permanently banned, and we’re prepared to ban anybody else who routinely violates the letter or spirit of our comment policy.

To which, I suppose, I should add the following explicit addendum: no spam.

And if that policy strikes some as unfairly subjective… well… it’s my blog, so fuck you.

I think Jane Hamsher has been pretty insightful when reading between the lines on the health care reform battle, but I’m not sure I get this part (via John Cole):

The sight of pundits yucking it up about the “Democratic circular firing squad” have become as tedious and threadbare as those counseling “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Both of these admonitions have at their heart the notion that “liberals” are being irrational, unreasonable and rigid in refusing to accept the Senate health care bill.

But in the very next breath, they will then promote statistics that say the tea parties are more popular than either the Democratic or the Republican party, and wonder if it’s an opportune time for a third party candidate. (From the “right,” of course, because who would take the “left” seriously.) At no time do the synapses firing in their brains make the connection that both the “lazy progressive bloggers” and the tea party activists are saying almost the exact same thing about the Senate bill.

There are two aspects to political problems – being able to identify a problem and knowing how to fix it. Most people are really good at the first part, but it’s the second part that matters far more.

Imagine you have an old car that you need to fix up. It needs a new transmission, new brakes, a new alternator, new upholstery, and new tires. The mechanic tells you that you only have enough money to fix the transmission right now. You know the mechanic is dicking you around, driving up the price and making it seem far more difficult to fix the car than it really is, but you just don’t have the tools or the knowledge to do it yourself. It sucks. All you want is to drive it again. Your crazy neighbor, however, thinks that you can just tape some cardboard wings on each door and the magical unicorns in the sky will make the car drive. That same crazy neighbor may tell you that just fixing the transmission isn’t enough to fix the car, and he’ll be exactly right, but you’re still better off working with the mechanic to fix the car.

This is the dilemma that we’re facing right now. The tea party activists may be able to identify problems with our health care system – and some may even echo our own sentiments about the shared power between government and big business – but their prescriptions for fixing it far too often live in the realm of fantasy. They continue to advocate for less regulation of what insurers and drug companies can and can’t do when every other health care system in the world that’s more organized, efficient, and cost-effective has more robust regulation than ours has. This bill is far from perfect, but it’s not bad enough that we have to join ranks with the crazies and pray for the magical unicorns to save the day.

Get ready for the newest trend in police profiling, driving while erotic.

From Roll Call:

The Office of Congressional Ethics has closed its investigation into Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) and Jim Moran (D-Va.) and their relationships to the lobbying firm PMA Group, and the OCE advised against a formal House ethics investigation, the lawmakers’ offices said Friday.

George Behan, Dicks’ chief of staff, said the OCE, which reviews potential rules violations and refers investigations to the House ethics committee, informed the Washington lawmaker on Dec. 2 that it had recommended the inquiry be dismissed.

“In his case, there was never anything there,” Behan said.

So, is Washington a high tax state, as folks like Tim Eyman so often imply? Well it all depends on who you are.

The Ten States with the
Highest Taxes on the Poor

Washington	17.3%
Florida	13.5%
Illinois	13.0%
Arizona	12.5%
Texas	12.2%
Hawaii	12.2%
Arkansas	12.1%
Ohio	12.0%
Connecticut	12.0%
Indiana	11.9%

The table above represents the effective rate of state and local taxes on the bottom twenty percent of households in each state. (In Washington, those earning under $20,000 a year.) As you can see, if your goal is to soak the poor, we kick ass.

Nationally, the average effective state and local tax rate on the bottom quintile of households is 10.9%; in neighboring Idaho and Oregon it is 8.6% and 8.7% respectively. Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it?

And how do we rank in terms of how we treat the wealthiest one percent of households? (In Washington, those earning over $537,000 a year.)

The Ten States with the
Lowest Taxes on the Wealthy

Wyoming	1.5%
Nevada	1.6%
South Dakota	1.9%
New Hampshire	2.0%
Florida	2.1%
Alaska	2.2%
Washington	2.6%
Texas	3.0%
Tennessee	3.1%
Pennsylvania	3.9%

So here in Washington, if you earn under $20,000 a year, you live in the highest taxed state in the nation. But if you earn over $500,000 a year, you live in one of the lowest. And that’s what makes Washington’s tax structure the most regressive in the nation by far.

The legislature will raise taxes this session; the only question is on whom?

I’ve written quite a bit about an income tax recently, prompting several readers to point out that such a measure would be unconstitutional, a standard rebuttal I routinely get from state lawmakers whenever I directly raise the issue with them.

The Washington Supreme Court has already ruled an income tax unconstitutional, and since neither house of the legislature is likely to coax the two-thirds majority necessary to put such a controversial amendment on the ballot, any debate about such a reform would be fruitless at best, and a distraction at worst. Or so the argument goes.

Well… not exactly.

Washington voters did overwhelmingly pass a graduated income tax via initiative in 1932, only to have it tossed out by the state Supreme Court the next year. It’s a complicated issue, but essentially the court defined income as property, thus requiring any such tax to adhere to the uniformity clause of the state constitution. Consistent with this ruling and other restrictions in Article 7 of the state constitution, the state can at most levy a flat one percent annual tax on income, with a household exemption of no greater than $15,000.

That said, all of the legal experts I’ve heard comment on the issue are of the opinion that the 1933 decision would likely be overturned if it were reargued today. Several other state supreme courts have since ruled that income is not property until it is converted to an asset, and in fact the case law guiding the court in 1933 has itself been overturned. As public finance attorney Hugh Spitzer explains:

[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.

So while yes, any income tax measure would surely be challenged under Culliton, Spitzer argues that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that this 1933 decision would be overturned.

That’s why I am strongly of the opinion that as both a strategic and pragmatic matter, the constitutional issue is little more than a red herring. In fact, it’s worse than that. It’s an excuse that Democratic leaders have been falling back on for decades to avoid the difficult and dangerous political challenge of embarking on real tax structure reform.

It is, I admit, possible that a high-earners or other form of income tax might ultimately require a constitutional amendment to enact into law, but that approach should only be taken as a last resort, and only after the people have already demonstrated popular support at the polls.

Any income tax measure — in fact, any substantive tax measure at all — will inevitably come before voters, either referred directly to the ballot by the legislature, or via citizen initiative or referendum. That is the indisputable reality of our current political climate. Thus the reasonable political course of action is to let voters have their say, and then the courts, ignoring the Culliton decision entirely.

If voters reject an income tax, then any prior effort to secure the two-thirds legislative majority necessary to put an amendment on the ballot would have been wasted. If voters approve an income tax, but the court rejects it, then the legislature has the popular mandate necessary to come back with a constitutional amendment. And if both voters and the courts approve an income tax measure, well, then it finally becomes law.

But since the people must ultimately have their say, what should be abundantly clear is that the 1933 decision can only become an obstacle to substantive tax reform if the legislature chooses to make it one.

So enough of this “an income tax is unconstitutional” bullshit. A) It’s probably not, and B) It doesn’t matter… at least not when it comes to strategizing how one might actually achieve an income tax, should that really be your objective.

Of course, if you oppose even the prospect of an informed public debate on an income tax, by all means, raise the constitutional issue. Just don’t expect me to treat your objection as anything other than what it really is.

Totally amazing. Stephen Colbert channels our very own Mr. Cynical: