HorsesAss.Org

Is Gov. Gregoire being coy?

Asked to list the top impediments to business in the state, Gregoire said she would like to overhaul the business and occupation tax, the state’s main tax on businesses. Calling the tax “ill-conceived” and harmful to small businesses, she invited business leaders to develop a plan for changing the system.

“If you want to come forward with an alternative to the B&O tax system in the state of Washington, the welcome mat is out from me,” Gregoire said.

I suppose there might be a number of B&O alternatives, including a Value Added Tax, or perhaps no business tax at all, but in inviting business leaders to develop their own plan, it certainly sounds like Gov. Gregoire is inviting them to propose a corporate income tax… a surprising invitation from a governor who has repeatedly dismissed even the notion of starting a conversation on such reforms. Encouraging, sure, though considering the longstanding split in our business community over this issue, if she really wants to overhaul the B&O tax, our negotiator-in-chief is going to have to do a helluva lot more than just put out the welcome mat.

The B&O tax is not only “ill-conceived,” it is an historical anomaly. In 1932 Washington voters overwhelmingly approved a personal and corporate income tax, overhauling a tax system that had previously over-relied on property taxes, but when the Supreme Court controversially ruled the new income tax unconstitutional while leaving the new property tax limits in place, the state was thrown into a budgetary crisis. The B&O tax was created as part of a hasty, and presumably temporary, political compromise.

75 years later, Washington’s B&O tax—a tax on gross receipts, rather than profits—remains just as ill-conceived as the day it was implemented, especially during this economic downturn when many businesses are forced to pay taxes on their losses. But while business leaders love to bitch about the B&O’s complexity and burden, they’ve thus far been unwilling to work together to propose a reasonable replacement.

Washington remains one of only five states without an income tax, and while Gov. Gregoire is right that there is currently little public support for a personal income tax, I doubt there would be much public opposition to the corporate variety, if that’s what the business community chooses for itself. And while such a revenue neutral reform would do little to address our long term structural revenue deficit, it would at least be a first step toward that conversation that Gov. Gregoire insists voters have no interest in starting.

Dominic Holden gives his perspective on the choice of Chief Kerlikowske for Drug Czar.

Robert Reich has some limited praise for the Geithner plan, but also some worries. After pointing out that the Federal Reserve has committed $2.5 trillion, yet nobody knows exactly what the heck they are doing, he observes:

In other words, Geithner and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke continue to do pretty much what Hank Paulson and Bernanke did: They hide much of the true costs and risks to taxpayers of repairing the banking system. Those risks and costs should be put on the people who made risky bets on the banks in the first place – namely bank shareholders and creditors. Shareholders of the most troubled banks should be wiped out entirely. Bank creditors- except depositors – should take major hits. And top executives who were responsible should be canned. But Geithner and Bernanke don’t want to take these steps for fear of spooking the Street. They think it’s safer to put the costs and risks on taxpayers — especially in ways they can’t see.

Oh boy. I cannot even begin to fathom the political reaction in this country if the Fed had to, in effect, be bailed out because of this.

May you live in interesting times.

Compromise.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Key US lawmakers agreed Wednesday on an economic revival plan of some 800 billion dollars and prepared to vote as early as Thursday to send the package to President Barack Obama, a top senator said.

As we learn more details, it will be interesting to see how much was put back for the wee kiddies. Apparently we have to destroy their schools to save them from the horrors of massive public debt, now that the money is being used to actually help people instead of blow things up.

Still, the histrionics from some Repubs is pretty hilarious. What’s actually horrifying to Americans is fat cats on Wall Street and in D.C. continuing to enrich themselves while the economy implodes. Debt is a long-term problem, but when the house is on fire worrying about the water bill is insanity. But then, Republicans always seem to focus on the wrong thing, it’s congenital with them.

Look over there! It’s a Fairness Doctrine! Ooga-booga!

UPDATE 2:21 PM PST– Or maybe the deal isn’t done?

According to both local and White House sources, President Barack Obama will nominate Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy—a cabinet-level position commonly referred to as the Drug Czar—an appointment that could signal a substantive departure from our nation’s current marijuana-focused, interdiction-heavy drug policy, and a more realistic and progressive approach toward the issue of drug abuse in general.

Within the context of career law enforcement professionals, I think it safe to label Kerlikowske a “progressive.”  During his ten-years at the helm of the Seattle Police Department and his current term as president of the Major Chiefs Association, Kerlikowske has been a vocal advocate for gun control and community policing, while serving as a prominent critic of the use of intrusive data mining techniques as a tool for combating domestic terrorism.  But while he hasn’t been particularly outspoken on drug control policy, Kerlikowske’s relative silence is encouraging in itself, considering the progressive mores and statutes of the city whose laws he has enforced for the past decade.

While Kerlikowske opposed a  2003 citizens initiative making marijuana in Seattle a “low priority crime,” calling the measure vague and confusing (and… well… most initiatives are), he emphasized to local reporters at the time that marijuana possession and use already was a low priority, and in fact, Seattle’s already low marijuana prosecution rate has dropped even further since the measure’s passage, indicating a responsiveness to the will of the voters.  Indeed, local drug reform advocates seem downright ecstatic about Kerlikowske’s appointment:

“Oh God bless us,” said Joanna McKee, co-founder and director of Green Cross Patient Co-Op, a medical-marijuana patient-advocacy group. “What a blessing — the karma gods are smiling on the whole country, man.”

McKee said Kerlikowske knows the difference between cracking down on the illegal abuse of drugs and allowing the responsible use of marijuana.

Kerlikowske’s laissez faire approach toward low-level possession fits well with our region’s libertarian streak and its progressive attitudes toward medical marijuana, needle exchanges and other drug issues.  Seattle has long been home to one of the largest Hempfests in the nation, where otherwise law abiding participants routinely light up in front of police officers without fear of arrest.  Meanwhile, Kerlikowske’s predecessor, Chief Norm Stamper, has established himself since leaving office as one of the nation’s most outspoken advocates for comprehensive drug policy liberalization and reform.  Yet despite the dire warnings of drug war hard liners, Seattle’s crime rate has dropped to a 40-year low during Kerlikowske’s tenure.

Kerlikowske’s office has not avoided controversy, particularly over accusations of lax discipline of officers, but he is widely admired.  Speaking on our Podcasting Liberally podcast last night, Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess, a former police officer, and current chair of the committee that oversees the police department, agrees that Kerlikowske is “no Bill Bennett,” and credits him for a “progressive” approach toward drug control issues:

Clearly the drug war as it has been waged traditionally in our country over the last 20, 30 years is not working, and there is a lot of collateral damage that’s unintended but is real, that is not helping us in that regard.  Chief Kerlikowske himself has been advocating some diversion programs, pre-arrest strategies, that are quite progressive.

Of course, Kerlikowske is no Norm Stamper either, but given the history of the Drug Czar office, his appointment should hearten those advocating for a more humane, rational and effective national drug control policy.

Damned with faint praise:

“Everybody’s really glad they reached a decision,” said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee. She said the intention is to approve the design during the current legislative session.

“The tunnel,” said Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, the Senate committee’s ranking GOP member, “seems to be something that’s got critical mass.”

That, my friends, is what politicians say when they are invited to polish a turd.

But this one is my favorite:

On Friday, Chopp said there are questions about how to pay for possible tunnel cost overruns. “Additional questions are being raised around transportation capacity, for example going from six lanes down to four,” he said, but for the moment he’s focused on the state budget and relief for families and businesses.

Doesn’t Chopp’s own Viaduct vision also reduce waterfront capacity from six lanes to four?

With rumors that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske is heading to D.C. to have his tax returns scrutinized, the podcast panel spends more than a little time on drugs, meandering around topics from the mean streets of Seattle, to the state’s top cash crop, to national enforcement policy.

Nibbling on some local issues, the podcast turns to mayoral runs, and Goldy extracts answers from his panel, including a Seattle City Council-member. One improbable “yes” emerges.

Back on drugs, the panel takes a swim in the latest pool of Reefer Madness. It seems Tony the Tiger has forsaken his munching minions. And A-Rod hits one out of the park with banned substances. Ironically, it takes a “stimulus package” to close out the podcast drug-free.

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Seattle City Council-member Tim Burgess, Effin’ Unsound’s and Horsesass’s Lee, and founder of Headzup.tv, John Shay.

The show is 40:58, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_feb_10_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

To interpret news today, I’ve taken to substituting the word “greedy” for “stupid.” When Wall Street bankers say they acted stupidly on subprime loans, they’re lying to us and themselves. They weren’t stupid then and they aren’t now. What they were and are is greedy.

When a congressman or former statesman says he was stupid to accept a bribe, or not pay his taxes, or hire illegal workers, he’s not stupid. He’s just being greedy.

And when Alex Rodriguez excuses himself for taking steroids because he was “young and stupid,” come on. Alex is no fool. He was angling for the biggest salary in baseball.

Most of all, when a headline or article refers to all these acts as stupidity, they are not practicing honest journalism. They should call it what it is: greed.

Stupidity is an Olympic hero smoking a bong while someone takes his picture. Stupidity is trying to drive in Seattle in the snow (not necessarily because you don’t know how to drive in the snow, but because hardly anyone else does). Stupidity is missing your bus or your recycling day, or driving too fast on Aurora at the speed trap north of the bridge.

But stupidity is not a synonym for greed. With greed, you know what you’re doing. You’re trying to get away with something for the sake of more money.

We all know this, so why make a big deal of it? Because by labeling greed “stupidity,” it excuses conscious deception, fraud and criminal behavior. If you say you were stupid, it’s kind of like, well, you know, it was out of my hands. I didn’t really mean to. It could’ve happened to anyone.

It also deflects the act away from its root cause, the worship of money. The problem with greed is that it destroys our humanity. It turns us into dogs eating dogs, every man for himself, the filthy rich versus the mass of people. Stupidity is not one of the seven deadly sins. Greed and its kissing cousin gluttony are two.

Greed is not good and never was. At least Gordon Gecko called it by its right name.

Most of all: If it’s stupidity, they’re implying they wouldn’t do it all over again. And here they’re lying again. They would do it all over again, in a flash, if they thought they could get away with it. Their motto derives from Dylan: “In Jersey anything’s legal as long as you don’t get caught.” After all, if they do get caught, they can just say they were stupid and the media will back them up.

Anyway, try it the next time you hear or read the word “stupid” from someone apologizing or writing in the news. It’s remarkable how it clarifies your perspective on what’s wrong in America.

From Seattle Weekly:

According to L&I, a glitch in its computer coding resulted in the agency refunding $10 million to $15 million more per year to employers and groups that participate in the so-called Retrospective Rating program for workers’ comp insurance. That is, they were getting a bigger refund on their premiums than their actual injured-worker claims would have justified.

It’s impossible to say, without knowing many more details, how much the BIAW might have benefited from this overpayment. But the builders’ lobby is the biggest participant in the “retro” program and uses the refund money to fund its political machine. The fact that government “incompetence” has, for years now, been helping the BIAW underwrite its war on government is either fitting or ironic, it’s hard to know which.

When I think back to all the distorted attack ads and the hysterical, right wing baloney the BIAW has pumped out over the years, it makes me want to puke. Turns out they had a good thing going, and they didn’t have the good sense to shut up and enjoy it.

Maybe now the Legislature will actually do something about the noxious “retro” program. Like end it.

So if toxic assets aren’t worth anything, who are the private sector people that are going to buy them?*

*Yes, I can be horribly mean and snarky. A lot. But I really don’t know the answer to this, nor, from what I understand, do many smart people who have degrees in business and economics. It’s not meant as an insult, it’s meant as a serious question, because the new administration is taking questions from bloggers and everyone and stuff.

Personally I imagine President Obama would answer this question pretty well, if someone can ask it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFDcUY6HiAo[/youtube]

Eddie “Clean Head” Vinson. I’m fine, the economy, well, you know. Rough patch. Talk amongst yourselves.

Please join us for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Start time is 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Or show up earlier for dinner.

For tonight’s activity…we’ll come up with some “fair and balanced” stories for FOX News. Someone needs to take over for the Republicans as they take a break to figure out the new face of the Republican party. (Hint: the one that shows up.)

If you’re not in Seattle, the Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times of a chapter within sleighing distance of you.

That’s what the PI is now reporting:

Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske has been appointed to a law enforcement post within the Obama administration, which would return him to Washington, D.C., after almost a decade as Seattle’s top cop.

A administrator in the Seattle Police Department said Tuesday that Kerlikowske notified commanders that he would be appointed as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a cabinet-level post often referenced as the White House “drug czar.”

I’ve been critical of Kerlikowske in the past (specifically about the way SPD has dealt with complaints of police violence), but I’ve never thought of him as an overly aggressive drug warrior. Maybe I’ve never seen that side of him, or maybe the ONDCP will have some more sensible leadership than it has. I’m not sure yet. I’m curious what those who have followed his career more closely than I have think.

I totally agree with the Seattle Times editorial board in arguing that government should “use technology to provide public records cheaply,” but I can’t sign on to their actual arguments.

In fact, our public records statutes can create an incredible burden on public agencies, requiring untold hours at taxpayer expense to fulfill requests that often amount to little more than vindictive fishing expeditions.  (I’ve often been tempted to file a public records request asking for the cumulative cost to taxpayers of Stefan’s many public records requests… but I didn’t want to waste taxpayer money on a lark.)  So when the Times complains about proposed legislation that would raise the maximum copying charge to $0.25/page, or deny requests to people who refuse to pay their outstanding balance, they make it sound like fulfilling a request requires little more effort than feeding some documents into a copier.

Hardly seems right that public agencies would be making such a profit off documents to which citizens are entitled. Though municipal lobbyists suggest the higher fee would offset costs of staff time in fulfilling the request, that is expressly prohibited by the state’s Open Records Act.

Um… so… if the Times recognizes that there are actual “costs of staff time in fulfilling the request,” why would they suggest that public agencies are making a profit?

Of course, they’re not.  The Times is just being the Times.  But at least they attempt to be constructive.

A better idea? Require cities, counties, ports and school districts to better manage their records. Why not make documents available by e-mail or copying them on to a disc — pennies a serving — even less if the requester provides the disc.

Yeah, that would address the cost to the requester of making copies, but it does nothing to address the real cost:  the many staff hours spent gathering documents and fulfilling the request in the first place.  In fact, it takes just as much effort, if not more so, to scan a document to disk as it does to feed it into a copier.

So how about an even better “better idea”?  Since most records are produced on computers, why not just take every electronic document or file that would be open to a public records request, and just automatically place them in a searchable online database?  Every email.  Every Word document.  Every spreadsheet or PowerPoint presentation.  Everything.

Because the vast majority of public records requests would probably be unnecessary if the records were actually, um, public.

UPDATE:
Erica takes umbrage:

Goldy argues that the “many hours of staff time” it takes to fill records requests should be compensated, and argues that every single public record maintained by government agencies should be put in computer files for the public to sift through themselves. The logic is tortured: Government agencies provide a valuable service we should pay them for (sifting through records to fill requests), therefore we should get rid of that service entirely and make people who file records requests find the records they want themselves. Not to mention the fact that most agencies don’t have a surplus of public-disclosure staff; in my experience, most government agencies only employ one public-disclosure officer. Is Goldy really arguing that we should eliminate that position from every government agency?

Um… no.  I’ve reread the post, and I don’t find myself making that argument anywhere.  I didn’t present an either/or.  Rather, I suggested that merely delivering records requests electronically doesn’t save all that much money, and that the real savings would come from putting as much of the public record as we can online, where much of the snooping could be done in a self-service manner.  But I don’t see how one infers from this post that I favor eliminating public-disclosure staff.