HorsesAss.Org

Following up on yesterday’s post comparing the cojones of Oregon Democrats to the relative lack thereof in their Washington counterparts (“Oregon Dems play ball; Washington Dems lack ‘em“), the Oregon House passed two bills yesterday raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The two tax increases would bring in a combined $733 million over the 2009-2011 biennium, softening cuts to education by filling in a sizeable chunk of Oregon’s estimated $4 billion revenue shortfall.

The bills have already passed out of committee in the Senate, where they are widely expected to pass. And…

Pleased by the votes, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said the measures “will not solve our budget shortfalls, but they will help thousands of Oregonians during this very trying economic period. … I look forward to signing these measures into law.”

It is interesting to note that by raising income taxes from the current top rate of 9 percent to 10.8 percent on household incomes over $250,000 a year, and 11 percent on household incomes over $500,000, Oregon’s HB 2649 will have a similar impact on the wealthy as would have the high-earners income tax pushed by advocates like me during Washington’s previous session, which in most iterations would have imposed a 2 to 3 percent tax on household incomes over $250,000 a year.  Likewise, Oregon and Washington both have super-majority requirements for passing tax increases, both have an initiative and referendum process that would likely subject any tax increase to a vote of the people, and both faced similar sized deficits as a percentage of their overall budgets.

Yet Oregon Democrats chose to raise taxes to help soften devastating budget cuts—never a popular thing to do—while Washington Democrats refused to even seriously debate the option.  Huh.

I’m not sure how to explain the cultural differences between the Democratic caucuses in these two neighboring Northwest states, that leads one to legislate boldly in the interests of their constituents while the other remains timidly enthralled to the status quo. But I am increasingly becoming convinced that there is only one option available to Washington progressives who seek accountability and responsiveness from the Democratic legislators we work so hard to elect. And it’s a lesson, ironically, we may need to learn from Oregon’s Republicans.

The Oregon tax bills passed by 37-23 margin, just barely within the three-fifths majority necessary. But with one Dem voting nay, the measure would have failed without the support of two Republicans who crossed over to approve the measures.  And as Carla reports on Blue Oregon, such breaks in party discipline don’t sit well with Oregon Republicans who are now on the warpath against their two traitorous colleagues.

“I think they’ve left the team and it wouldn’t surprise me if they have strong opponents in the primary” next year, said Oregon Republican Chairman Bob Tiernan.

On top of that, Tiernan said it was “probably likely” that the state GOP would actually wind up helping defeat Smith and Jenson in next year’s party primary.

Tax activist Russ Walker, who heads the Oregon chapter of FreedomWorks and is vice chairman of the state GOP, has helped take out two Republican incumbents in past years who voted with Democrats in primary. Rep. Vic Backlund, R-Keizer, was beat in 2004 and Sen. Charles Starr, R-Hillsboro, lost in 2006.

“I swear to God they will not come back to this building,” said Walker. “Those guys are not reflecting the values of those who put them in those seats.”

Not that moving the state party even further to the right is the best electoral prescription for what ails Oregon Republicans, but from a Machiavellian perspective you gotta at least admire the GOP’s traditional enforcement of party discipline. Perhaps Greg Smith (R-Heppner) and Bob Jenson (R-Pendleton) believe their party is too weak at the moment to extract its usual revenge, or perhaps they truly care enough about education to risk the inevitable, but there’s a reason so few Republicans tend to cross the aisle on contentious votes, particularly those involving tax increases.

Democrats, on the other hand, we’re all over the place, which is partially due to the fact that we really are a big tent party (herding cats and all that), and partially due to the fact that progressives tend to be, by nature, substantially less vindictive than our counterparts on the right. Organized labor got absolutely screwed by Dems during Washington’s recent legislative session, but talk to them about their threats to withhold money from caucus committees and it’s like… you know… we’ll see how the 2010 session goes.

Way to hold their feet to the fire, guys.

The fact is, Democratic legislators, at least here in Washington state, simply aren’t afraid of disappointing the progressive base of the party because they know that there aren’t any consequences. Serious, well-financed Democratic primary challenges come less often than Seattle snowstorms, and they are never backed by the Party itself. Hell, we can’t even take out Sen. Tim Sheldon. So what does a Democratic incumbent have to fear?

I heard plenty of grumbling during the past session about conservative stances from swing district, suburban Democrats, or about the BIAW-toadying leadership of House Speaker Frank Chopp, but honestly, they’re not the main problem. Swing district Dems come from swing districts, and when averaged together, broadly tend to represent the often conflicting interests of their broad constituencies. And as Speaker, Chopp’s job is in fact to build and maintain a strong Democratic majority, a job he’s admittedly done efficiently, even if progressives like me have legitimate complaints about his failure to use it.

No, the legislators who have most let down the progressive base are generally those who hail from safe, Democratic and overwhelmingly progressive districts. You know, mostly Seattle and other largely urban strongholds. Whatever their values or their votes, as a block, they simply aren’t delivering, either within caucus deliberations or on the floor. And whether this failure is due to caution, competence or ideology, this block will continue to disappoint until we either replace them with legislators who are willing and able to effectively represent our interests, or the fear of such replacements forces them to step up their game to the next level.

Of course, our main focus should be on recruiting and supporting strong candidates in races for open seats—not the annointed or the same-old, same-old party faithful who would only deliver more of the same, and not the politics as usual kinda  single-issue advocates who so often fail to be effective on the broader progressive agenda. (One can’t help but admire Chopp’s passionate advocacy on behalf of affordable housing, but… well… you know.) No, what we need are smart, passionate, creative, fearlessly independent progressives, unbeholden to the party or any particular faction thereof, who are eager to use the safety their districts provide to pursue a broad and boldly progressive agenda.

You know, the kinda legislators who aren’t afraid to talk taxes regardless of how loudly the leadership yells “Shhhhhh!”

But… seats don’t open up all that often, so if we progressives really want our Democrats to be responsive to our needs, we need to primary a few of our own, and we need to do so with such an overwhelming show of force that future primary threats are taken damn seriously. When safe Democrats understand that they’re only safe from Republicans, perhaps they’ll start paying more than just lip service to our concerns.

This isn’t a tactic to which I’ve come lightly, and I fully understand the logistical and electoral challenge it represents. Way back in 2004 I ridiculed SEIU for failing to take out a little old lady in what I thought at the time was a misguided effort to primary Rep. Helen Sommers.  (But then, I also described Joni Balter as “one of Seattle’s more thoughtful and evenhanded political commentators,” so what did I know?) But a lot of things have changed since then, not the least of which being the near super-majorities Democrats have since won in both the House and the Senate.

With plenty of cushion and few opportunities for expansion, spending electoral resources primarying Dems in safe districts does not represent the same sort of politically self-destructive in-fighting it might during leaner times. Indeed, without a viable Republican opposition to pick off the weak links and keep Democrats on their toes, one can reasonably argue that we’re in desperate need of a little intramural competition to keep our party lean and fit. In politics as in other pursuits, combatants tend to rise to the level of the competition; the Republican caucus is currently in a woeful state, and the Democratic majority has arguably responded accordingly.

So while I know Frank, Lisa and others might not like my harsh prescription, they’ve done little to convince me it isn’t needed nonetheless.

The Washington Post reports that three people have been shot at the National Holocaust Museum.

A security guard and two other people were shot today inside the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in downtown Washington, authorities said.

U.S. Park Police said a gunman armed with a shotgun opened fire on the security guard and that other security guards returned fire. The gunman was reported wounded.

The shooting was reported to police at 12:52 p.m., and officers rushed to the scene just south of Independence Ave. bordering the Mall.

Details are still sketchy, and we have no idea what was behind this incident, but it’s certainly troubling.

UPDATE 11:07 AM PDT– NBC’s Pete Williams has reported on-air that authorities are identifying the suspected assailant as one James W. von Brunn, whose apparent web site at first glance seems to be um, rather sick. So if you don’t like Jewish-conspiracy right wing nutball supremacist crap, don’t go there.

NBC also reported that von Brunn is believed to have been born in 1920.

UPDATE 1:15 PM PDT–Both MSNBC and CNN have reported on air that one museum security officer has died of his injuries. What a sad and tragic event.

It’s Tuesday evening, which means that the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm. Or stop by early for some dinner.

For tonight’s post-partisan moment, we’ll join Newt Gingirch in channeling Ali G.:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI-uOiO2_v4[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 332 chapters of Drinking Liberally sprinkled liberally across the globe.

The Oregon Senate passed SB 519 yesterday, by a 16-14 margin, a bill that prohibits employers from holding mandatory meetings to discuss religion, politics or union organizing. Sound familiar? It was a similar bill that got Washington Democratic leaders so flustered last session that they actually called the cops on the unions in the cynical, insulting and cowardly ploy they used to justify tabling the controversial measure.

It’s not clear what prospects the bill faces in the Oregon House; more than a few Democratic senators only voted for it reluctantly, and Oregon Democrats don’t hold nearly the majority their counterparts enjoy in the Washington legislature. But at least they let it come to the floor for a vote instead of fucking over one of their core constituencies.

Over the past few weeks one house or the other of the Oregon legislature has voted to increase taxes, close corporate tax loopholes, and protect worker privacy… all agenda items that were strictly off the table in Olympia during our recently ended session? Why? Well, I can only assume that, metaphorically speaking, Oregon’s Democratic leadership has balls, and ours doesn’t?

Or perhaps Frank is waiting for Gov. Rob McKenna before attempting to enact a progressive agenda?

In teasing the Seattle Times about its recent spate of noncontroversial and/or opinion-free editorials, I jokingly asked:

What’s next? A bold, sharply worded editorial arguing that puppies are cute?

Well today, in a rare signed editorial, Lynne Varner comes pretty damn close, pushing the edge of civil discourse by editorializing in favor of Camp Fire Girls. I’m almost tempted to write a scathing, profanity-laced attack on the entire Camp Fire movement, just out of sheer boredom.

Jesus Christ folks, throw me a bone here, before I’m reduced to reading (shudder) Crosscut.

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

I occasionally meet with foreign journalists through a program with the World Affairs Council, and near the end of a recent meeting, German TV and radio journalist Richard Gutjahr interviewed me on camera for a minutes on the craft of blogging. You can watch the results above.

Gutjahr interviewed activists, bloggers and legacy journalists at the New York Times, Washington Post, Seattle P-I, Des Moines Register and elsewhere, producing a series of brief videos on The Future of Newspapers , Better Blogging and Understanding New Media . In addition to me, other Seattleites interviewed include Jonathan Lawson of Reclaim the Media, Robert Jeffrey of Colors NW, SoundPolitic’s Jim Miller and the Seattle P-I’s Mark Trahant, who, right around the time of the paper’s final print edition, gives this spot on answer to the question of what he would have done differently:

“I would experiment like crazy. My frustration being in legacy media the last two years is that we didn’t fail enough. We kept trying to do things the way we’d always done them, and we should have been out there on the edge, just, what’s the wildest thing we can think of and try it, and we didn’t do a lot of that. I think if I had to do it all over again I’d argue more for total experimentation, because if you’re going to go down, at least go down and make it interesting.”

Hear that Ryan Blethen? Wouldn’t it be “wild” to put me on your editorial board? I mean, if you’re going to go down….

It’s an interesting series of interviews, and worth a look.

I have an admirer.

State and local bloggers usually don’t get the kind of wingnut honors reserved for big time folks like Kos and Atrios, I’m on cloud nine. That is actually me in the photo, BTW.

So we’ve captured a cold-blooded killer with ties to an organization with a history of terrorism who now says that there are a number of other active plots around the country. When do we start waterboarding Scott Roeder?

I wasn’t trying to be mean to Jan Drago in writing yesterday about her less than exciting public speaking performance. Not every politician is great a public speaker, just like not every talk radio host wields Dave Ross’s mellifluous baritone. Given her inability to differentiate herself from Mayor Greg Nickels on values and issues, I just don’t think she has what it takes defeat the incumbent, and, well, I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

But rather than hearing from angry Drago supporters, the most defensive comment in the thread came from Mike McGinn booster Craig, who objected to my focus on Drago and mention of Joe Mallahan while ignoring the McGinn campaign entirely:

On the other hand, Michael McGinn has stood up and challenged the political status quo (NO tunnel!), has dedicated his life to our City and his beliefs (fighting RTID, leading the Green Legacy Coalition to develop and pass last years Parks levy, serving as the local Sierra Club leader, founding Great City and serving on numerous City boards, commissions and oversight groups), has a vision for our city and understands what it takes to get it done (better schools, improved transit service and technology infrastructure), and, most importantly, has a fast-growing base of dedicated volunteers (what really wins elections). He’s also got the whole “smart, articulate and positive thing going” as well.

Let’s start talking about the real buzz in this year’s campaign, Michael McGinn.

Okay Craig, if you insist, let’s talk about the “real buzz” surrounding McGinn, which unfortunately for him has so far centered around his anemic campaigning.

Yeah, sure, whatever buzz Mallahan has (if any) is entirely self-financed, but if McGinn has all this organizing experience and grassroots support working for him, why hasn’t he translated it into a little do-re-mi of his own? By my estimates McGinn has raised a little more than $30,000 from less than 150 contributors, a pretty pathetic total after three months of campaigning.

No, politics isn’t all about the money, nor should it be, but fundraising can be a useful measure of both a candidate’s political competency and support. And what does it say about a challenger who made his mark as a leader in the environmental community when most of the major environmental endorsements are going to his opponent?

Successfully running for office, especially against an entrenched incumbent, is a near full time job, yet the last couple times I saw McGinn, he was just out riding his bike.  Not doorbelling, not fundraising, not working the crowd, just out enjoying the sunshine and riding his bike.  Good for him, I suppose. It’s a healthy passtime. But with that kinda political work ethic, I don’t think that’s a buzz you hear coming from his campaign, Craig, but rather the hiss of the air slowly escaping from McGinn’s political tires.

Again, I’ve got nothing against the guy. I just calls ’em as I sees ’em.

Um… this is an editorial? I hate to belabor the point, but aren’t opinion pages supposed to contain actual opinions?

I mean, if the Times’ editors aren’t going to write anything stupid, selfish, misleading or downright dishonest, what the hell am I going to blog about?

The Seattle Times has a piece today about “Seattle’s confusing parking meters: Pay to 6 p.m., get towed at 3,” giving voice to outrage over the always unpopular parking enforcement folks and their evil plot to trick unsuspecting drivers into getting their cars towed.:

Many merchants on this block believe tourists or those simply unfamiliar with downtown streets are being hit the hardest by the tows, thanks in part to pay stations that allow drivers to purchase parking through 6 p.m., despite signs that say otherwise.

Merideth Meador, a bookkeeper at a First Avenue architecture book and supply shop, has seen it all before.

“They like to say, ‘Well, I put my money in. That means I should be fine.’ We have to explain to them that that’s not necessarily true,” she said.

Except, um… how is this any different from the old coin operated meters? They’d accept your money any time of the day… nights, weekends, holidays, whenever.

I mean, if the signage is insufficient, that’s one thing. But the fact that the meters continue to accept your money even after 3PM, well, they always did that.

Last week’s contest was won by 2cents, with a big assist from N in Seattle. The correct location was a bulldozed project in Lexington, KY.

Apparently, Microsoft moved their maps over to bing.com. It appears to work the same as the old site. Good luck!

Danny Westneat says that there’s a “buzz” coming from political newcomer Joe Mallahan in the mayor’s race. I haven’t met Mallahan yet, but folks I trust tell me he’s a personable guy and not a bad public speaker.

As it turns out, there was also a buzz at last night’s Progressive Majority fundraiser during Jan Drago’s brief speech, but unfortunately for her, it wasn’t coming from Drago herself.  Rather it was the buzz of audience members quietly talking amongst themselves as they lost interest in Drago’s words.

I had the opportunity to meet Drago for the first time last night, and we had a lovely conversation… a much more comfortable conversation than I tend to have with elected officials upon first meeting, especially those about whom I haven’t always written kindly. I came away genuinely liking her, at least about as much as one can come away liking a person after a fifteen-minute conversation, and I can understand why her supporters like her too.

But after watching her less than dynamic performance in front of a friendly, alcohol lubed crowd, I have to stand by my previous analysis:

The dilemma for the challengers is this: how do you defeat a competent, scandal-free mayor whose values you share, and whose policy agenda you largely support?  You beat him by being a better politician.

And that’s why I’m convinced that none of the challengers in this race, not even Drago, can beat Mayor Nickels, for as vulnerable as he is, and as grating as his style obviously can be, none of his opponents possess the force of personality necessary to get voters excited about change.

Drago struck me as likable enough and all that, but she just doesn’t seem capable of generating sufficient buzz to toss out the incumbent, however low his approval numbers. And while her 16 years on the council no doubt leave her well qualified for the office, it’s hard to see her dynamically selling the pitch to disgruntled voters that what we really need now is an infusion of old blood.

As for Mallahan, perhaps he really can generate that kinda buzz.  I dunno.  Then again, we tend to set an awfully low bar around here when it comes to exciting politicians, so perhaps he just comes off as buzzy compared to the rest of a less than exhilarating field?

Place your bets

UPDATE: Day 2 is posted. And it seems that the lying continues. SJ’s sock-puppet, Charlie Kee, made an appearance, but SJ claimed it’s not him:

BTW … my Google must be fucked up as it seems not to be able top find these posts you claim I mad as Charlie Kee.

FWIW, I did once know someone by that name. He was a Captain in the Navy Medical Core. I may have mentioned him in some post, but I do not remember.

Here’s the comment from September where you admitted to being Charlie Kee. Does that refresh your memory, you lying douchebag?

I’m a big fan of neighborhood schools.

I grew up in a relatively affluent, suburban school district where nobody chose their schools, you just went to the one nearest your house. And I can’t tell you how convenient and comfortable it was to be able to walk to school from kindergarten through ninth grade.

That’s why the close proximity to Graham Hill Elementary was such an attractive amenity when, six month old baby in tow, we bought our house. For seven years, starting in pre-school, my daughter walked to and from school without even crossing a street, and there’s something special about being part of school community when that community is centered in your immediate neighborhood.

In 2006, when Graham Hill inexplicably found itself on the closure list, I joined with other parents to fight hard to save our neighborhood school, and against the closure process in general. And while Graham Hill was ultimately spared, and went on to thrive over the past few years, I sympathize deeply with families at other schools who were not so fortunate.

And so I read with interest the editorial in today’s Seattle Times—a paper that has strongly advocated in favor of school closures—arguing in favor of plans to redraw boundaries and limit school choice, not only as an effective cost-cutting measure, but also as a means of supporting and promoting neighborhood schools:

Set to take effect fall 2010, it offers a comfortable level of predictability and efficiency. Neighborhood schools, as opposed to citywide busing, offer cohesion and a level of intimacy among families. It allows schoolmates to move through the system together. Most parents would find the prospects of play dates and after-school activities easier to manage if their assigned school were practically within walking distance.

No doubt.

But in supporting an assignment plan that would limit choice and force more families into their neighborhood schools, the Times glosses over the circumstances that lead parents to inconveniently ship their kids halfway across the city in the first place: the gross inequity between schools from one neighborhood to another. Where I grew up, nobody chose their school; what would be the point when they’re all equally excellent? But as even the Times points out, that’s far from the case in Seattle:

The superintendent must make good on her promise to improve the quality of the city’s 90-some schools, particularly struggling ones in the Central Area and South End. The proposed plan’s foundation rests on the assumption that most families will accept their neighborhood school assignment. For that assumption to bear out, those schools must be academically up to par.

No, for the vast majority of families to accept neighborhood school assignment, their schools must not just be academically “up to par,” they must be equally excellent. And this simply cannot be accomplished unless the district, amongst other things, invests significantly more money per student in Central Area and South End schools than it does in those in more affluent northern neighborhoods.

Why do some schools require more money than others? Partially because their children are more expensive to educate. For example, during the years my daughter was at Graham Hill Elementary, the student population was about one third ESL and nearly two-thirds free and reduced price lunch. Children of immigrant and other poor and working class families simply face more challenges than children of affluent professionals, and generally have fewer resources to fall back on. And while school funding formulas do target extra money toward at risk and special needs children, it’s not enough to make up the difference.

But there’s another factor responsible for the growing disparity between individual Seattle schools, one which nobody seems to want to talk about:  the growing reliance on PTSAs in affluent neighborhoods to fund the services the district can no longer afford to provide.  At some North End schools PTSAs routinely raise over $1,000 per student per year to fund “extras” like art, music, tutors, teachers aides and other amenities (even, it appears, to reduce class size); indeed, upon taking the tour of Tops K-8, the guide explicitly told prospective parents that since admission would save us the cost of private school tuition, those of us who could afford it would be expected to cough up the difference accordingly.  Meanwhile, some Central and South End schools barely manage to raise a few thousand dollars a year total, if they have an active PTSA at all.

Think about it. A working class South End family lucky enough to win assignment to, say, Stevens Elementary, will see their children benefit from all the amenities the generally affluent parents of their Capitol Hill classmates can afford to provide. So why wouldn’t they be tempted to bus their kids halfway across the city? Meanwhile, those affluent families at Graham Hill—and there are some—know that their generous PTSA contributions on their own can never amount to enough to provide the whole school the sort of services and benefits afforded their North End counterparts. Rather than tutors and teachers aides, we could merely raise enough money to pay for field trips, assemblies, classroom supplies and little extras like that.

Seattle does not enjoy (or suffer from) the same sort of racial and socio-economic homogenity of the suburban Philadelphia school district of my youth (Lower Merion, in case you’re wondering), let alone that of Mercer Island or Bellevue, so I understand that 100-percent equity is not an achievable or even necessary goal. Seattle has done a wonderful job rebuilding and renovating schools, putting most on an even footing in terms of physical plant, thus most parents would happily choose their neighborhood school as long as its program is somewhat comparable to those offered in other neighborhoods. But we will never come close to that level of equity as long as we rely on PTSAs to pay for services that should be standard across the district as a whole.

Yes, promoting neighborhood schools is an admirable goal, as is the efficiency and cohesion that comes with it, but there are downsides as well, not the least of which being the continued racial and socio-economic resegregation that is already proceeding apace. If the Superintendent eliminates choice without first resolving the academic and funding disparities that already make busing such an attractive alternative for so many families, she will only widen the existing inequities between neighborhood schools, not narrow them. And that can only create the kind of unfair and untenable circumstances that led to our existing inefficient and “Byzantine” assignment rules in the first place.