HorsesAss.Org

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.

Tim Eyman is nothing if not repetitive, as evidenced by the four times in less than five minutes that he made the same exact argument: that there needs to be a balance between what government says it needs and what taxpayers are able to afford.

Truth is, I can’t argue with that sentiment; I just can’t see how Timmy can use it in defense of I-1033, an initiative that would put even further limits on revenue growth, at a time Washington’s state and local taxes have been steadily falling as a percentage of personal income, and for at least a decade and a half. I mean, isn’t that the best measure of affordability?

And I’m not just pulling my figures out of my ass; I’m pulling it out of Tim’s ass, using the same statistics he uses, as compiled by the conservative Tax Foundation. Indeed, according to the Tax Foundation, Washington’s state and local taxes have fallen from 10.4% in 1994, when we ranked 17th nationwide, to 8.9% in 2008, and a ranking of 35th.

So if Tim really believes, as he repeatedly states, that the issue is whether taxpayers can afford the government we’re getting, I’m not sure exactly what problem I-1033 is intended to solve? He can rant all he wants about high taxes and out of control government growth, but the statistics — his own statistics — just don’t back him up.

Box Turtle Bulletin notices something interesting about a new anti-71 ad.

The second image you see flashing on the screen, of Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, is a copyrighted image from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You can find a copy of that image on their web site as part of their Gospel Art Picture Kit. Another one found on a web page titled, “What Do Mormons Believe About Adam and Eve.” It’s interesting reading, since it hints at a fallible God — or at least a God that gives conflicting instructions and it’s up to us to decide which set of instructions to follow.

Since the image is copyrighted by the LDS, either there is copyright infringement going on or, um, the Mormon Church is up to its usual anti-equality antics.

Yeah, it’s a laughably bad spot, but as I used to point out, so far my marriage and my children are just fine, despite attempts to extend the same civil rights heterosexual couples enjoy to gay couples.

As a casual observation, I would have to argue that adjustable rate mortgages and high credit card rates have done far more to destroy marriages in my community than the existence of scary gay people, so if we want to “protect the children,” maybe we should get serious about financial sector reform. LDS can put that in its pipe and smoke it.

(Props to DKos diarist Clarknt67.)

Tim Eyman accuses I-1033 opponents of spinning scare-stories around the initiative’s potential impact, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the measure would unravel funding for state services and infrastructure when we only need look to Colorado. There a similar TABOR initiative pegged revenues to population-plus-inflation back in 1992, and the results have been devastating.

Joining Washington state educators at yesterday’s No on I-1033 press conference (you know, the one that Timmy so rudely crashed) was Colorado Education Association President Beverly Ingle, who explained how TABOR has eroded education funding, both at the K-12 and state university level. And, as I explained yesterday, as state education funding shrinks, so will local funding, despite Eyman’s uninformed and insincere assurances.

This isn’t rocket science. I-1033 will shrink the size of state and local government, and quite dramatically. That’s Tim’s goal. And by shrinking government I mean it will reduce the quality and breadth of government services, and defer crucial infrastructure investments.

So, if what you think we need to do is spend less money on education, I-1033 is for you. Because that’s exactly its intended result.

There’s a political compromise brewing in the US Senate over several conservative Democratic senators’ opposition to the a public option, a possible “option” clause that would allow states like Nebraska or North Dakota to opt out of the national public option… I mean, if they really want to. And as always, McJoan at Daily Kos gets to the heart of the issue:

In terms of national policy, is this necessarily a good idea? Probably not, when you’ve got crazy secessionists like Rick Perry in governorships. The thought of all those Texans not having access to care is a problem. On the other hand, how many governors ended up sending back those stimulus checks? How many governors, state legislators, or even Senators of Nebraska or North Dakota or Arkansas are going to be willing to stand in front of their constituents and tell them that the rest of the country has access to a government option for their healthcare. Have at it, Ben Nelson.

Yeah, probably not a great policy idea, but if that’s what it takes to get a real public option passed for the rest of us, I agree with Joan:  have at it, Ben Nelson.

A representative from MAPS, an organization devoted to studying the effects of psychedelics, recently sent me a press release about upcoming research being done in Vancouver to study the use of MDMA (more commonly known as ecstasy) to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. While a lot of people will snicker at the idea of using what’s more commonly known as a recreational drug for rave attendees to treat people who suffer trauma from serving in war, previous research has shown some serious promise.

MAPS’ goal is to demonstrate that MDMA has valid medical use so that the FDA and other international health agencies will allow it to be prescribed by doctors. Currently, MDMA is illegal in the United States, but has rather unsurprisingly seen a large spike in use since its distribution was handed to criminal organizations back in the 1980s. Internationally, MDMA is illegal in most countries, but researchers in Israel and Switzerland are also studying the effects of the drug.

One aspect of this story that caught my attention is the fact that this latest study in Vancouver, which could potentially benefit hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD, is being funded entirely by charitable donations. You’d think that a treatment that has shown such serious potential and has such a large potential base of customers would be something that American pharmaceutical companies would be interested in. Unfortunately, MDMA is off-patent and the drug itself doesn’t need to be taken every day for the overall treatment to be effective. As a result, there isn’t much money to be made when compared to giving old people boners.

Via TPM:

Two men were arrested when police found a pipe bomb, two shotguns, bomb-making materials, ammunition, a can of propane and SWAT costumes in their car Tuesday night in New Haven, Conn.

So far the police don’t have a clear sense of what the pair were planning to do, New Haven Police spokesman Officer Joe Avery told TPM.

Nope… no idea at all of what the pair were planning to do.

So let’s be clear. Brown-skinned guys with backpacks and cell phones… obvious terrorist bombing plot. White-skinned guys with actual bomb… um… gee… who the hell knows?

I’ll get to the real video later, you know the stuff with teachers talking about the real life impact of the budget cuts that would be coming under Initiative 1033, but first I thought I’d just post this clip showing what a real life asshole Tim Eyman can be.

Understand that Tim shows up, uninvited, at somebody else’s press conference, and yet despite his trespassing, is courteously allowed to stay and talk to the press. Because, you know, that’s just the way our side is… we welcome a public debate, because we’re confident we’ll win it.

But when I attempt to ask him a serious question, he won’t even look me in the eyes, let alone give me the courtesy of a response, instead dismissing me as “not the media.”

“This is a press conference,” Tim emphasizes in snubbing me.  Yeah… a press conference at which I was personally invited, and he was not. He also twice belittles the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly, perhaps the senior member of our state’s political press corps, saying he’s only “kinda sorta still the media.”

I mean, really… who the hell is Tim to decide who is and who is not the media?

The truth is, Tim won’t answer my questions because he knows that he can’t, for in repeatedly claiming that local school districts can simply go to voters to raise their local levies to make up for lost state revenues, he’s both lying to voters, and showing his own totally lack of understanding of how his own initiative works.

As I attempted to explain to Tim, there is a statutory lid on the amount of revenue districts can raise from local levies — 24% of combined state and federal funding for most districts, and grandfathered in as high as 33% for a handful of districts like Seattle, Bellevue and Mercer Island. And since many districts are already at or near their lid, if state funding goes down (and it absolutely will in real dollars should I-1033 pass), so would the amount of money districts would be allowed to raise via local levies.

This is a fact. And it’s simple math… math Eyman is either unwilling or unable to do. So any “real” journalist who allows Eyman to repeat his claim that districts can just go to voters for more money, is allowing Eyman to repeat a deliberate misstatement of act. (You know… a lie.)

Of course, the legislature could always lift the lid, and surely voters in wealthy districts could be persuaded to raise significantly more revenue for their local schools than they currently receive. But this shift in funding from state to local would only exacerbate the existing inequities between school districts, disadvantaging the children in the poorer and more rural areas that ironically will vote for I-1033 in the largest numbers.

But then, isn’t that the norm for Eyman initiatives: always hurting most those Tim claims he’s trying to help.

UPDATE:
Will speculates on Tim’s refusal to even make eye contact with me: “Perhaps he’s afraid he’ll fall in love? Either that, or he’s afraid he’ll turn to stone?”

A teacher from Colorado joined local teachers at press conference this morning to explain how Initiative 1033 would harm education in Washington state, and guess who showed up to crash the party?

I’m editing video now of some of the highlights of the press conference, plus some very rude treatment of me and Joel Connelly when we attempted to ask Tim Eyman serious questions. I mean, really… what a horse’s ass.

Long time political observers will notice a curious twist to the No on I-1033 campaign; for the first time ever, a campaign is overtly branding a Tim Eyman initiative as an actual “Tim Eyman initiative.”

Why? Well, I talked to folks from the campaign and they say that their research is absolutely conclusive. Voters don’t like him, voters don’t trust him, and they’re much less likely to vote for an initiative if they know it is sponsored by Tim Eyman.

Understandably, I take some pleasure in that, for while Tim deserves most of the credit for his negative rebranding, it is fair for me to claim to have played a not insubstantial part. At the time of my horse’s ass initiative, Tim was still widely referred to in the press as “initiative guru” or “initiative kingpin” Tim Eyman… adjectives I worked hard to undermine. Nowadays he’s almost always identified as a “professional initiative sponsor,” reinforcing the truthful perception that he’s mostly in this for the money.

So now that the voting public no longer takes Tim seriously, it’s time for the press to follow suit. Yeah, I know he gives good quote, and a horse’s ass always makes for good headlines. But as a writer of public policy the man is entirely unserious, and let’s be honest, without the financial support of one man, Michael Dunmire, Tim would have ceased qualifying initiatives for the ballot years ago.

Looks like the gloves are coming off in the race for mayor of America’s Vancouver, which pits city council member Tim Leavitt against veteran incumbent Royce Pollard.

From The Columbian:

Vancouver mayoral candidate Tim Leavitt has missed “an outrageous” 16 elections over the past 10 years, including primary elections in 2008 and 2006 and general elections in 2002, 2000, 1999 and 1998, according to a review of voting records by the Vancouver Firefighters Union. Leavitt doesn’t dispute missing the votes, but says it has nothing to do with his ability to serve as mayor.

And an IBEW political action committee, PAC 48, has put up a little web site in honor of Leavitt called “Stop Lying Tim Leavitt.” Nothing subtle about that.

Jeff Mapes at The Oregonian had an interesting little post today concerning a $15,000 donation made to an Oregon IBEW committee from wealthy Clark County resident David Nierenberg, who has given mightily to all sorts of Democrats, philanthropic causes and his former boss Mitt Romney. From Jeff Mapes on Politics:

As it happens, though, the PAC operated by Local 48 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on the same day – Sept. 23 – gave $30,000 to PAC 48 of Washington. That PAC is also operated by the union, but it operates across the river where many of the union’s members are located.

So it appears Nierenberg is coming in big in support of long-time incumbent Royce Pollard. Well, $15,000 isn’t really big money for a guy like Nierenberg, but in a Vancouver mayor’s race it’s still a decent chunk of change. (Full blogger ethics panel disclosure: I knew Nierenberg from a campaign group called Evergreen Citizens for Schools from roughly 1998-2002. While he would probably take a phone call from me, I haven’t spoken to him for several years.)

Chris at Politics is a Blood Sport has a pretty straight-forward take on Nierenberg’s involvement:

David Nierenberg contributes to causes and candidates that he believes will benefit the region. While there’s little agreement from this little blog about the benefits of a Mitt Romney, there’s a wide range of agreement on other candidates Nierenberg has backed over the years.

Pollard is truly in the fight of his political life, and he’ll need all the help he can get from IBEW Local 48 and others if he is to succeed. What may have started as a simple off-year mayoral race is turning into a referendum on the new bridge, light rail, and the overall direction of Vancouver for years to come.

Leavitt has mounted a serious challenge to Pollard, that’s for sure, but he’s done it by exploiting economic uncertainty and trying to have it both ways on tolling when it comes to the CRC project that would build a new bridge on I-5 between Vancouver and Portland. A lot of Leavitt’s rhetoric is that same old “waste fraud abuse” stuff, burbbling about government being run like a business, etc. You know the type.

There isn’t going to be a new bridge without tolls; the Congressional delegations know it, Oregon officials remind us of it repeatedly, and at least Royce Pollard faced up to this basic fact a long time ago. Leavitt can try to finesse the issue all he wants, but he’s built a campaign by capitalizing on the issue and if elected mayor, it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, for him to endorse tolling. In essence, the bridge project would most likely be doomed.

There’s a great irony in all this. Leavitt is the preferred candidate of the local BIAW chapter, whose members presumably would benefit from improvements in transportation between Clark County and Portland. In a conventional political world like the ones in political science textbooks, the bidness guys and gals from the BIAW would get behind the moderately conservative, pro-business incumbent who wants to make it easier for people to live and shop in their city. But the conventional, tidy views of politics that still find voice in newspapers and on NPR exist only in some imaginary pony land. In the real world, conservatives pull out all the stops, on every issue, from the top to the bottom, and with control of both Clark County and the City of Vancouver within their reach, they’re not bloody likely to let up now, and they’re not at all sentimental about all the good things Royce Pollard has done over the years, either for them or the community at large.

I don’t know who the BIAW thinks buys their warranty-free houses, or rather will buy them again if the economy recovers from the international financial larceny made possible by the same neo-liberal ideology that informs every action of the right, and a fair portion of the “left.”

The BIAW long ago gave up any pretense of being interested in anything other than ultra-conservative ideology and gutting government for the sheer hell of it. It’s not a bug, it’s a design feature. If Leavitt becomes mayor, Vancouver might as well change its name to “Vista, Washington.”

Please join us tonight for some politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

Go ahead…put your evening on hold to help fight the fascists….

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMRK2oSo82Y[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 340 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to shoot for.

The state Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held a work session last Thursday to discuss national health care reform, and how the various proposals might impact our state-administered Medicaid program. Testifying was DSHS staffer Roger Gantz, and almost from the start, Sen. Cheryl Pflug (R-Obstructionville) attempted to disrupt the discussion by threatening him with an ethics complaint.

Her beef? DSHS and the committee were using state resources to research and discuss pending federal legislation, an action she equated with illegal lobbying and campaigning.

What a load of shit.

As Sen. Ed Murray (D-Reality) helpfully pointed out, it is not an unusual practice for committees to have briefings on the scenarios the federal government may act on, and goes on to suggest that Pflug’s own efforts to threaten and intimidate Gantz, may in fact violate Senate rules on how they treat people coming before their committees.

But Pflug’s lack of etiquette aside, what this exchange really demonstrates is how incredibly frightened Republicans are to have a debate about healthcare reform at all, and how eager they are to shut it down. I mean, honestly, apart from the senators and the two people testifying, what are there, six other people in the hearing room, and maybe another couple dozen watching on TVW? And for this she’s willing to make herself look like an idiot by suggesting the Health and Long-Term Care Committee is ethically bound to avoid any long-term planning?

Coward.

Or if you hate children, and don’t want to properly educate them, I guess you’d want to vote Yes on I-1033.