HorsesAss.Org

It’s not just the old media that is struggling to maintain political coverage, as newcomer PolitickerWA has reportedly shut its doors as part of a company wide purge that saw the closing of 12 of Politicker’s 17 state sites.   Bryan Bissell made a good go at it here in WA, and it’s too bad to see the experiment fail.

The future of journalism is online, but you still need deep pockets or not-for-profit support to survive for the moment until the revenue model catches up with the business reality.  Speaking of which… I’m looking for some angels to help me continue and expand my political and news coverage here on HA, so if you’re interesting in getting in on the ground floor of an innovative and exciting local media venture, drop me an email.

I’m glad this is finally being broached. 

Fox Chicago News reports that Emanuel, the Chicago congressman who was appointed shortly after the election to be Obama’s White House chief of staff, had “multiple conversations” about the issue with the governor himself and with Blagojevich’s chief of staff, John Harris — who this week was charged along with his boss.

I’m disappointed, though, that it has to be FOX. While the NYT was busy playing up Blago’s Obama quote —“They’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation, fuck ’em”—as evidence that O’s team was clean (heck, they even ran an article with a headline that cut across 8 lanes of traffic to imply that Obama was partially responsible for bringing Blago down), my take on Blago’s Obama rant was this: If Blagojevich was pissed at Obama, it’s possible Obama’s people knew Blagojevich was wheeling and dealing for quid pro quos. So, the question I had was: Why didn’t they blow the whistle? 

I’m not saying this news about Emanuel proves anything (as TPM pointed out, it does make sense that Obama’s people were talking to Blagojevich), but it does nudge this story in a direction that seemed obvious, but for some reason, was being downplayed by the likes of the NYT.

If the NYT learned anything from the Bush years, I’d hope it’s that they need to be more skeptical of what the President (or President-elect in this case) says.

Come on People. If this was Bush, you’d be asking the same questions.

It is nice to know that at least somebody is willing to speak honestly and openly about both sides of the budget equation:

The chairman of a legislative task force exploring how to improve the way the state pays for K-12 education says a tax increase is the responsible way to pay for the roughly $3 billion worth of ideas in the group’s final report.

Dan Grimm, a former state legislator from Puyallup as well as a two-term state treasurer, said Thursday that he was inspired by a phone call and letter from Gov. Chris Gregoire to propose an extension of the sales tax to services. That would make things such as doctor’s visits and financial advice subject to sales tax.

On Tuesday, the task force voted to approve a proposal that asks for more state money to pay for things such as a longer high school day, smaller class sizes in the younger grades and regionally adjusted pay for teachers. Cost estimates range from $2 billion to $3 billion over each two-year state budget cycle.

[…] Grimm said Gregoire made it clear in their brief phone conversation that if task force members suggested a plan for raising taxes she would support putting that proposal before the voters as a referendum.

Too often we’ve had a one-sided conversation when voting on budget issues, with a rash of statewide initiatives over the past decade that have either mandated new spending or cut existing taxes, with little or no debate about the budgetary intersection between the two.  And recently, editorialists have pressured legislators and the governor to ignore the revenue side of the equation in attempting to close our state’s looming $5 billion shortfall.  But it’s time to start treating voters like grownups, and have a grownup conversation about education funding and other budget priorities.

The fact is, we spend too little on basic education, and the sorts of increases the panel is suggesting would prove widely popular.  But the money has to come from somewhere, and while I don’t dismiss the notion of re-prioritizing existing funds as part of the solution, it would be totally irresponsible and fantastical to attempt to address this issue without at least discussing the revenue side of the equation.

Extending the sales tax to personal and professional services is certainly a reasonable proposal, as year over year these activities make up a larger portion of our economy as opposed to the sale of goods, the ever shrinking segment on which we currently rely for the bulk of state revenues.  Raising taxes is never popular with voters or politicians, but if we’re going to talk about increasing spending on education, increasing taxes needs to be part of the conversation.

And perhaps in this context it is also time for elected officials to start talking about an income tax, as either a dedicated tax or part of a broader restructuring that both increases education funds while lowering the overall tax burden for the vast majority of Washington families.  For example a Graduated High Income Tax of 3% on joint incomes over $200,000 per year ($100,000 for individuals), and 5% on incomes over $1 million, would raise about $2.6 billion per biennium, while exempting 96% of households. (Yet it would still leave us with a highly regressive tax structure that largely favors the wealthy.  Imagine that.)

The point is, there are two sides to the budget equation, and it is both silly and childish to insist on talking about one without talking about the other.  Any substantial tax increase or restructuring is going to come before voters, one way or another, so if the anti-tax folks truly represent the sentiment of the majority, they have nothing to fear from an open and honest debate.

The most exclusive kleptocracy in the world refuses to act.

A frantic, last-ditch attempt to forge a relief package for the auto industry collapsed in the U.S. Senate, dealing a giant blow to the immediate hopes of the Big Three.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada suggested the $14 billion wouldn’t be revisited until January. “It’s over with,” he said.

The talks, which appeared close to a deal several times, broke off due to a sharp partisan dispute over the wages paid to workers at the manufacturing giants.

Every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings regular Americans lose. Maybe the Senate can send workers an enrollment in a jelly of the month club.

An advisory panel has narrowed the replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct down to two options, and surprise… neither is state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s mile long Suicide Park Mall.

One is an elevated-bypass hybrid that would run along the waterfront on two independent bridge structures side by side with two lanes in each direction. It would connect to the Battery Street tunnel on the north and a new intersection on the south near Qwest and Safeco fields. Alaskan Way would be placed under the elevated structures. The cost estimate is $2.3 billion. When construction costs, traffic mitigation and related projects are added, the cost would be $3.5 billion.

The other option is a surface/transit scenario, which would create a pair of north and southbound streets along the waterfront. Alaskan Way would become a one-way southbound street with three lanes and a bike lane. Western Avenue would become a one-way northbound street with three lanes and a bike lane. The cost is estimated at $2.2 billion. With construction and traffic mitigation and related projects, the cost would be $3.3 billion.

An “elevated-bypass hybrid,” huh.  Back in the 1950’s, I think they called that a “viaduct.” 

If I were a betting man, I’d bet on the surface/transit option.

Oops.

The Seattle Times editorial board warns against deficit spending:

Washington already borrows billions for capital projects such as roads, ferries and university buildings. These are expensive assets that last many years, and borrowing spreads the cost over the generations.

Borrowing to build a university hall is like borrowing to buy a house. Borrowing to pay salaries of state workers is like taking out a mortgage to buy groceries.

Yeah, well, it depends on what those state workers are being paid to do.  For example, if they’re being paid to educate our children, well, that’s a long term, expensive asset that lasts many years too (13 to 26 years to fully educate, a half century or so of productivity).  So it kinda makes sense to spread that cost over generations as well, doesn’t it?

For example, study after study shows that investing in universal preschool and early, comprehensive intervention for troubled children and their families, pays off huge financial dividends down the road in the form of higher wages and lower costs.  Same holds true of investing in preventative health care.  So really, how is borrowing money to pay for a teacher or a vaccine any less justified than borrowing money to pay for a school or a hospital?

Again, I’m not ready to argue that the state should necessarily borrow a couple billion dollars to help ease the pain of this economic downturn, but the knee jerk arguments against it aren’t very conducive to an informed debate.  The issue is not nearly as black and white as the folks at the Times want to make it out to be, and I hope our legislators adopt a more nuanced approach.

Worst since 1994.

The mood of uncertainty was evident in a local report this week showing that only 318 new and pre-owned houses sold in Clark County in November. That’s down 37.3 percent from the 507 home sales in the same month last year. November’s total was the lowest for that month since 1994, according to “benchmarks,” a tracking service of Vancouver’s Riley & Marks appraisal firm.

“Uncertainty” is probably the key word, as the article explores somewhat. How bad are job losses ultimately going to be? Will interest rates be set at 4.5%? Who knows?

A couple weeks back, in writing about our incredibly stupid special election for King County Elections Director, I urged Jason Osgood to drop out of the race in favor of a more viable candidate if the alternative would mean throwing the election to a partisan, career politician.  Well, yesterday, Jason did exactly that, throwing his support behind current Elections Director Sherril Huff.

Jason Osgood, a previously declared candidate, announced Tuesday he was dropping out of the race and throwing his support to Huff, whom he called “the most experienced and best-qualified candidate.”

I doubt you will ever meet anybody more passionate about election reform than Jason, and he deserves a ton of credit for such a gracious and responsible move.

FYI, I will be moderating the King County Democrats candidate forum on Monday, December 15th, 7-9 PM, at the Renton Carpenters Hall, 231 Burnett Avenue North in Renton.  All candidates who file by Friday’s deadline will be invited to participate, and I urge them all to do so with confidence that I will be tough but fair.

Bad kitty.

Earlier this week, over at Slog, Erica dismantled Jim Vesely’s proposal that bikers pay a $25 bike license fee for bike lanes and trails. Vesely’s idea might make some sense if accommodating biking didn’t also benefit car owners, and more important, if bikers didn’t have to simultaneously pay taxes and levies to fund roads that are largely dedicated to cars.

As Erica correctly points out, car owners do benefit from bikes and bikers are helping subsidize car owners:

Every year, the US government spends more than $100 billion to subsidize driving above and beyond driver expenditures on gas taxes, vehicle purchases, and license plates. 

Add on other shared costs related to cars—pollution, land use costs—and it’s hard to ignore that everyone, including those who don’t own cars, are subsidizing cars.

In turn, bikers shouldn’t be the only taxpayers to fund bike lanes. 

I’m revisiting Vesely’s ignorant editorial a few days late because it’s hard to ignore another example that’s come up this week where the public—bikers included—are going to be paying for car owners: The Feds are about to commit $15 billion to bail out GM, Chrysler, and Ford. 

I’m not saying bikers should be exempt from saving the auto industry, but as the kids say, I’m just sayin.

The Downtown Seattle Association, along with a who’s who of the city’s most prominent retail and residential real estate developers, has sent a letter to various state and local officials, all but laughing at the economic viability of “Option E,” state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s preferred alternative to replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct.

“This alternative relies on an economic premise that we believe is fundamentally flawed — that there is a market for nearly a mile of new retail development under the highway structure.”

No shit, Sherlock.

Chopp’s plan would call for a mile long, triple decker structure with a retail mall on the ground level and a four-lane sorta elevated tunnel above, capped with a pedestrian park.  The “genius” of Chopp’s plan is that above the basic cost of building the freeway, rents and development rights would pay for the park, the retail construction and other promised amenities.  Talk about a great deal.

Well, not so much, according to the folks who actually do this kinda stuff for a living, the very developers  Chopp is counting on to make Suicide Park Mall a reality.  Amongst the problems envisioned is the lack of demand for 600,000 square feet of new retail space, particularly at this location… you know, with all that “noise, lack of parking, and stigma of being under a freeway.”  One developer commented that the project would be too risky in a boom economy, let alone our current economic bust.

The developers also cited “engineering uncertainties” that make the project “unfeasible from a yield to cost perspective” (translation: impossible to make a profit), including the challenge of placing below-grade foundations within the highway right of way and the waterfront’s “well documented geotechnical conditions,” as well as the need to physically isolate the retail construction from the highway in order to minimize noise and vibration.

“Failure to accomplish this isolation would render the space below unacceptable for commercial occupancy.”

Given these and other inherent risks, the developers make it clear that the estimated rental income simply doesn’t offer a reasonable return on investment.

“It is our firm conviction that this scenario does not offer the commercially attractive or viable opportunities that are essential for funding the amenities that are suggested.  We strongly believe this scenario should be dropped from further analysis and consideration.”

And that’s not just some dumb blogger or activist (or mayor) talking; that’s the opinion of the chief officers of eight of the region’s most prominent developers.  Chopp can argue with the developers if he wants, but considering his project is entirely predicated on their investment, it’s the firmness of their conviction that counts, not its accuracy.

I know that given the political necessity of securing the Speaker’s cooperation whatever alternative is ultimately selected, everybody is afraid to criticize Option E as the utterly ridiculous “impractical and unachievable” fantasy it truly is, but criticizing Chopp and criticizing Chopp’s plan are not the same thing.

Chopp has done an admirable job building and maintaining a large Democratic majority in the House (using it, well, we’ll see how the coming session goes), and with a few notable exceptions he’s proven himself an effective and progressive (if sometimes too pragmatic) Speaker.  But Option E… it’s kinda crazy… economically, architecturally and politically… and it’s time somebody Chopp trusts tells him so.  All this polite beating around the bush… you’re not doing Frank any favors.

So now that the people with money have given everybody a little political cover, it is time for some prominent elected officials—including members of Chopp’s own caucus—to thank the Speaker for his creativity, but offer a very firm “no thank you” to a mile long mall that simply isn’t viable.  Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to fritter away time, money… and Speaker Chopp’s credibility.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some of us will show up even earlier to dine.

Tonight’s special guest will be the newly elected Commissioner of Public Lands, Peter Goldmark. Stop by and chat with a genuine rancher, scientist, environmentalist, firefighter, and politician—a modern-day renaissance man.

Not in Seattle? Check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Remember, you read it on HA first:

The Washington Association of Realtors is in trouble again with state campaign watchdogs — and this time Dino Rossi and state Attorney General Rob McKenna are implicated.

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) staff filed a complaint last week alleging the Realtors group illegally coordinated campaign spending with unsuccessful GOP gubernatorial candidate Rossi and McKenna, a Republican incumbent who won re-election last month.

The complaint also says the Realtors group did not properly report expenditures on brochures during the last three weeks of this year’s race for governor.

Almost $1 million in campaign spending is at issue in the complaint.

It took a few days, but both the Seattle Times and the Olympian report today on this latest Republican campaign finance scandal, and it looks like it’s making it onto the AP as well.  But so far they seem to have glossed over the real news here, the apparent complicity of Attorney General Rob McKenna.

If McKenna is as savvy a politician as we all think he is, he’d be wise to call for an independent prosecutor before others do.

It’s good to see that during these tough economic times, we have our priorities straight when it comes to funding higher education:

Though he has yet to sign a contract, Steve Sarkisian has a “memorandum of understanding” with Washington.

Annual guaranteed compensation:

Year	Salary
2009	$1,750,000
2010	$1,875,000
2011	$2,000,000
2012	$2,100,000
2013	$2,300,000

Incentive compensation: He will reach incentives if the Huskies play in a bowl game ($150,000), win the Pac-10 ($350,000), play in a BCS bowl or win the national title. He also can make up to $250,000 a year if the team meets certain academic standards.

Other compensation: includes standard UW employee benefits; the use of two vehicles, moving expenses; club membership.

I’m just sayin’….