HorsesAss.Org

Yeah, see, the thing about today’s front page Seattle Times article on I-1033 — “Tax limit complex; impact unclear” — is that it isn’t, and any fair and balanced effort to impartially explain the initiative to voters only does readers a disservice.

I mean, honestly, on one side you have a broad coalition of labor and business, backed up both by the expertise of the state Office of Financial Management and the real world experience of Colorado’s disastrous TABOR experiment, and on the other side you have, you know, Tim Eyman. Yet in the typical J-School fashion, the Times’ Andrew Garber labors to present both sides equally.

To what end?

The truth is, both the intent and the impact of I-1033 is painfully clear: it will make state and local governments smaller, both as a percentage of the total economy, and in their ability to provide services and build and maintain public infrastructure. I-1033 pegs revenue growth to population plus inflation, yet it is an indisputable fact that the cost of providing government services increases at a substantially higher rate than inflation as a whole. (As I’ve repeatedly explained, it’s all gotta do with the nature of productivity.) Therefore, under I-1033, government revenue would increase slower than its costs. That is a fact. It’s simple math. And there’s nothing unclear about it.

Neither is there anything unclear about Eyman’s intentions. He wants to shrink government… you know… to the size where he can drown it in a bath tub. He’s WA’s Grover Norquist, only taller, and not nearly as smart. (And Norquist, to his credit, is at least manly enough to look me in the eye.)

He’s also an admitted liar, barred by court order from ever serving as campaign treasurer due to his inability to keep his campaign funds separate from his personal accounts. So why the hell is Eyman given equal weight as, and considerably more ink than, say, OFM, in explaining how I-1033 works? For example, in dismissing the argument that I-1033 would hurt schools, Eyman disingenuously claims that, unlike Colorado’s law, his measure doesn’t touch schools at all… rhetorical bullshit that Garber dutifully echoes:

However, there are key differences between the two measures. Colorado’s applied to all governments including school and fire-protection districts. Eyman’s affects only city, county and state government.

Uh-huh. But see, the thing is, about three-quarters of K-12 funding comes from the state, an expense that accounts for the largest chunk of the state budget, so to suggest that limiting state revenues won’t limit education spending is patently ridiculous. Furthermore, local school levies are capped by law at no more than 24% of state and federal funding (up to 33% in a handful of districts), so as state education spending declines (inflation-adjusted or otherwise) so will the amount local school districts are allowed to raise via local levies. Again, it’s simple math: if school levies are capped at a percentage of state funding, and I-1033 limits state revenue, then I-1033 imposes revenue limits on local school districts.

So yeah, Garber is technically accurate in stating that I-1033 excludes local school districts, but by failing to put the very real (and mathematically indisputable) impact of the measure in its broader context, he only ends up misinforming voters. There will be voters who cast their ballot in favor of I-1033, wrongly (if honestly) believing that it will not impact their local schools, and some of these voters will undoubtably believe this thanks to Garber’s impartial reporting.

I’m not implying ill intent on the part of Garber or the Times, or any sort of ethical or professional lapse. But this is clearly one of those times when their devotion to the traditional journalistic paradigm allows the facts to obscure the truth, and ultimately, only serves to mislead the public.

Stefan Sharkansky says he used to do comedy improv. Huh. I guess that explains his coverage of the 2004 gubernatorial election contest.

Two weeks ago’s contest was won by YLB. The correct answer was Amsterdam.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Oh man is this refreshing. Just look at what White House Communications Director Anita Dunn had to say about Fox News in an interview on CNN this morning.

Fox News “is more a wing of the Republican Party” than an objective news organization.

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”

Fox News is “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

“They’re widely viewed as part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put ’em on the air.”

“If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN.”

“Let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

No, let’s not pretend.

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with “opinion journalism” — I guess that’s sorta what I practice. But unlike FOX News, I’m honest about it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va7-nEAkxx0[/youtube]

I missed a lot of posts here as I traveled, so this may have been covered already, but Rush Limbaugh is trying to buy the St. Louis Rams. In response, several black NFL players have said they would refuse to play in St. Louis. It’s hard to know how widespread that sentiment would be, whether it would affect their ability to sign free agents, or if it’s even possible for the Rams to be worse than they already are, but the NFL will certainly be thinking about that before the owners and league would approve any deal.

Having an owner with a well-known history of racism isn’t that unusual, even in sports with large numbers of black athletes. Marge Schott made enough racist comments when she inherited the Cincinnati Reds from her husband in the 1990s to get herself suspended by the league multiple times. Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, had to pay a multi-million dollar settlement after he was caught forcing black families out of the buildings he owned. While many players have lamented being stuck on the Clippers, few have openly complained about playing for a team run by someone with such a long record of racist behavior. It’s also possible that better players, who have somewhat more control over where they can play, are able to avoid playing for him. The Clippers have been one of the worst franchises in any of the four major North American sports leagues for several decades. That may not be because of Sterling’s racism, but it certainly hasn’t helped.

But Limbaugh may be a different story altogether. With his high profile and his increasing hostility towards Obama and everything associated with our country’s black communities, his presence alone may make it very difficult to assemble a competitive team in St. Louis again. At the very least, every time Limbaugh says something stupid, black players on the Rams will get sick of having to comment on it. It will be a distraction that players will quickly tire of. Unless he just stops saying ignorant things, which appears impossible for him at this point.

If the deal goes through, there would be one side benefit (other than the Seahawks continuing to have two easy wins every year). It would make it clearer to people that Rush Limbaugh is not some average dude railing against “elites”. He’s an extremely fucking rich guy. And while there are large numbers of people who will never figure out that Limbaugh’s shtick has been to get rich by fueling the kind of partisan (and often racist) nonsense that pitted Americans against each other, the fact that he’s now one of the “elites” who sits in a luxury box watching his NFL team play makes it easier for those outside of his listening audience to see him for the fraud he is.

As expected, the Seattle Times has endorsed No on I-1033, as will most every other newspaper in the state.  But while it is a responsible editorial, and fairly well argued, I couldn’t help reading it with an involuntary roll of the eyes, for some of the common misconceptions the editors attempt to correct, happen to be ones they’ve worked damn hard to create.

The Times now argues that Washington is not a high tax state (in fact, we’re 35th by Tim Eyman’s own source), but this will strike many readers as quite contrary to the impression the Times itself has left over the past few years, whether arguing for estate tax repeal, or in favor of an all-cuts budget, or in support of Dino Rossi and other conservative Republicans. Even former state Republican Party Chair Chris Vance has acknowledged that King County’s budget woes are largely due to a structural revenue deficit, not out of control spending, a fact based reality the Times appears pained to grasp.

I-1033, unlike I-601, applies to counties and cities as well. In all of them, growth in property-tax revenue is limited to 1 percent plus taxes on new construction. Cities and counties are finding it a hard limit to live with. Any further limit on their tax collections should be up to the citizens in each jurisdiction.

Further limits? The existing 1 percent cap is an arbitrary and ridiculous limit that is already eroding the ability of local governments to provide basic services, and the Times is willing to even suggest the notion of further limits… and in an anti-1033 editorial no less?

There are two reasons why Eyman’s I-1033 still has a chance to pass. 1) Investment banker Michael Dunmire; without his money none of Eyman’s recent measures would have qualified for the ballot; and 2) Our state and local media have relentlessly created the impression in the minds of many voters that Washington is a high-tax state with out of control spending… and editorializing against Eyman’s initiative once every year or so, is not enough to change that impression.

Back from a week out on the east coast and catching up on the news:

– Has there been a more entertainingly bizarre story than what’s been happening in Hardin, Montana? The town builds a jail in 2007 believing that building the jail is the road towards economic prosperity and more jobs. The jail stays empty for the next year and a half as the bonds issued to pay for the jail go into default. As desperation sets in, the economic development arm who initially built the jail volunteer to house Guantanamo detainees, but aren’t successful. As desperation increases, they then sign an agreement with a con-man from California named Michael Hilton (who has a long criminal record mostly involving fraud) and his private security force – named the American Police Force – to run the jail. Hilton also intended to set up a military training facility and perform law enforcement duties in the town. Without any formal announcement, black Mercedes SUV’s start rolling through the town with official-looking City of Hardin Police insignias (based on a Serbian coat-of-arms) that no one seemed to be expecting. Then, the Billings Gazette reporter who’d been covering the jail saga is hired away by the American Police Force to be their spokesperson. As the story explodes and the Montana Attorney General ponders an investigation, Hilton (a native of Montenegro who refers to himself as “Captain”) claims that an executive with a security firm named Michael Cohen has accepted the job of running the operation. Cohen says there’s no such deal and calls Hilton a liar. Finally, the economic development arm is finally forced to scrap the whole deal after it fully dawns on them that they just signed an agreement with a career criminal with a bogus company to run their jail and patrol their town. Holy fucking shit.

– This Wednesday morning, the Massachusetts Legislature will debate a bill to fully regulate and tax marijuana. The fight to create more sensible laws for marijuana may still take some time, but when the Today Show can have level-headed segments like this on the topic, we’re getting there.

– Two men are trying to open up a medical marijuana dispensary in Mountlake Terrace. In Spokane, the Gonzaga chapter of the ACLU is planning a demonstration in support of the medical marijuana law after the recent arrests there have again made it difficult for authorized patients to obtain medicine.

Update [Darryl]: And here is some political multimedia fun for the weekend.

My friend Stefan Sharkansky and I will be appearing together tomorrow afternoon at the NW Journalism Conference, in a panel discussion on blogging moderated by conference organizer Barry Mitzman, 3:30 PM, Pigott 201, Seattle University.  Huh. I didn’t know Stefan blogged?

The theme of this year’s conference is “The Future of News.” Registration is $50, but only $15 for students and the unemployed (which given the current state of “News,” probably covers most of the attendees).  There are several interesting sessions at the daylong conference I might attend, not to mention a lunch with Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen, if I weren’t otherwise engaged at my daughter’s soccer game. One must have priorities.

Yup, this is how Republicans congratulate our president:

“They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept.”
— Rush Limbaugh

“It’s not Republicans that are throwing their lot in with terrorists — it’s the White House.”
— Michael Goldfarb

“Before they break out the champagne at the White House, they may want to pause over the fact that Obama now shares this honor with Mohammed el-Baradei, Yasser Arafat, and flagrant liar Rigoberta Menchu Tum.”
— Mona Charon

“Now as he nears a critical decision on whether or not to provide the troops his commander in the theater is pressing for even as appeasers in his inner circle council appeasement of the Taliban, he is awarded the world’s most prestigious prize.”
— Hugh Hewitt

“I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it.”
— Erick Erickson

“After a number of years, the NFL renamed its Super Bowl trophy after its most fitting recipient — it’s now called the Vince Lombardi Trophy. I’d like to see the Nobel Foundation follow suit. If today’s headlines said, ‘Barack Obama Wins Yasser Arafat Prize,’ that would be perfect.”
— Andy McCarthy

And the DNC’s appropriate response?

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

Embarrassing indeed.

Well, he may have lost in his bid to win the 2016 Summer Olympics for his hometown of Chicago, but I guess his international standing has not totally eroded, as President Barack Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize nonetheless.

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” a honor that came less than nine months after he made United States history by becoming the country’s first African-American president.

The award, announced in Oslo by the Nobel Committee while much of official Washington — including the president — was still asleep, cited in particular the president’s efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said.

For Mr. Obama, one of the nation’s youngest presidents, the award is an extraordinary recognition that puts him in the company of world leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev, who won for helping to bring an end to the cold war, andNelson Mandela, who sought an end to apartheid.

Oh man that must tie the righties’ underwear up in knots. In fact…

But it is also a potential political liability at home; already, Republicans are criticizing the president, contending he won more for his “star power” than his actual achievements.

You know, actual achievements like 9/11, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, disastrous missionless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression and other highlights of the Bush administration.

In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor,George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said in its citation. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

The world still looks to the United States for leadership, moral and otherwise. Here’s hoping President Obama has the strength, ability and opportunity to deliver on today’s recognition.

In another few hours, NASA’s Centaur rocket will crash into the moon in a search for evidence of water. The following NASA promotional video has more:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI[/youtube]

Read the headline, teaser and five-sentence story accompanying it at the top of the Seattle Times’ home page this afternoon, and you could be excused for thinking that Sound Transit has suddenly found itself in some deep shit. In fact, you might even be downright angry at the implied notion that Sound Transit might have misled voters last fall, and will soon have to come back for even more money.

You’d be wrong, but it wouldn’t be your fault. Rather the blame lies squarely on one of the stupidest bits of reporting, editing and headline writing I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading in the Times… and considering it’s the Times, that’s a pretty high bar.

Sound Transit isn’t “forecasting a loss,” they’re forecasting revenues coming in at $3.1 billion below original projections over the next 15 years… which is about $1 billion lower than the previous revised forecast. That’s not a loss, as you can’t lose something you’ve never had. Indeed, Sound Transit couldn’t possibly show a loss this year or the next or over the next 15… it’s a government agency, not a business, and government agencies just don’t work that way; they can only spend the dollars they have!

Furthermore, despite the lower forecast, Sound Transit still believes it can deliver the services promised, and on time. How? Well, despite all the naysayers, their budgets have long been on the conservative side, with fairly deep built-in reserves. Due to the recession, these reserves don’t leave much wiggle room anymore, but that’s why they’re constantly redoing their revenue forecasts… so that they have time to react to changing circumstances and respond accordingly.

And, now that they know that revenues are coming in significantly lower than projected, they’ll adjust their design and engineering to reflect the new fiscal reality. That means new stations may become standardized and not quite so fancy. Meanwhile, expensive changes and alternatives, however politically expedient, are much less likely to be adopted. They’ll also be force to be more creative in looking for savings in operations. (UPDATE: Seattle Transit Blog has more.)

But they are not, as the Times irresponsibly implies, operating in the red, to the tune of $3.1 billion or any other number. That’s just plain wrong, stupid, and in my opinion, an inexcusable reach for a sensationalist headline that does nothing but misinform the public.

UPDATE:
The Seattle Times has changed the headline to the more accurate “Sound Transit to collect $3.1B less.” That may not be as sexy as the first headline, but it has the virtue of being based in fact.

That said, I’m still at a loss to explain how the Times editors could have possibly gone with the first headline without realizing the obvious false impression it would make on readers. I mean really, it couldn’t be interpreted any other way. Meanwhile, for those of you who would still prefer to spin this into a story of Sound Transit mismanagement or dishonesty, here’s a graph from today’s revised forecast that tells the whole story:

Of course, this is also the story behind the revenue woes at every agency at every level of government throughout the state and the nation. Those who blame budget woes solely on profligate spending while ignoring the revenue side of the equation, quite simply have their heads up the ass.

During remarks last year before the Washington Policy Center, a conservative think tank funded by wealthy, right-wing donors, King County Exec wannabe Susan Hutchison took a moment to plug their Policy Guide for Washington State, a collection of policy proposals for key areas of government.

“I’d like to put in a plug for a book that you have on your tables. It’s called the Policy Guide for Washington State and it’s published by the Washington Policy Center. Let me tell you about this book. I have read it cover to cover and it is one of the most extraordinary pieces of work about Washington State and the policies that make our government run. It hits on 10 different subjects from health care, education, transportation, tax policy and others. But let me tell you, folks… if you started this book tomorrow morning and read it through you would be smarter by dinnertime tomorrow night. This book makes you smart. So I highly recommend that you take it and that you read it.”

So… what exactly are these “smart” ideas that have Hutchison so excited?

On transportation…

Manipulating transportation policies to force a particular behavior coerces people into abandoning their individual liberties in favor of a socialistic benefit where supposedly a greater collective good is created.

[…] Reduce spending on costly, ineffective fixed-route mass transit. Policymakers should change spending priorities that heavily favor mass transit systems despite chronically low ridership. Riders of these expensive systems, like light rail and the Sounder Commuter Train, are being heavily subsidized by automobile commuters, yet research shows that fixed rail does nothing to reduce traffic congestion.

[…] The problem is that transportation spending is based on other agendas rather than congestion relief. As a result, the cost of bringing goods to market rises and consumers end up paying more for products.

Sound Transit’s East Link proposal is a good example. Reconfiguring the center lanes across Interstate 90 (I-90) for light rail, as agency officials propose, would not only fail to reduce traffic congestion, it would, according to the state Department of Transportation, worsen traffic congestion by 25 percent.

On the environment…

Proclamations about the risks from climate change have been revised again and again, always downward, and other information has been shown to be more about politics than science.

[…] Eliminate the mandated “green” building standards for public buildings…

On science…

Even when the science is accurate, it does not indicate that the problem ought to be addressed or that particular policies should be followed.

On I-1033…

Adopt a constitutional amendment to limit the growth of spending to inflation and population growth.

[…]

Colorado’s spending limit, in contrast, was enacted as part of the constitution and has proved much more effective at protecting citizens from aggressive state spending. Passed by the people in 1992, Colorado’s Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) limits the amount of tax revenue the state can keep each year to the sum of inflation plus population growth.

That’s right, in enthusiastically embracing Washington Policy Center’s recommendations (and in giving them over $100,000 from the foundation she ran), Hutchison was for I-1033 before she was against it, only worse, as the Policy Guide calls for the population-plus-inflation limit to be cemented in the state constitution, just like Colorado’s disastrous TABOR measure.

Hutchison can talk all she wants about being a moderate nonpartisan, but these are the policies she’s endorsed, these are the policies she’s helped fund, and these are the policies we must assume she’d pursue. If Hutchison wins in November, right-wingers will hail it as a huge victory, because she is one of them.  But her only path to victory is to hide this fact from voters.