HorsesAss.Org

As a blogger, you never know which otherwise boring, nondescript local politician might someday blossom into an endless source of amusing blog fodder.  Take for example King County Councilwoman Jane Hague, who to this connoisseur of political snark has only grown better with age.  In fact, we could say that Hague has aged like a fine wine… though if we did, she’d probably try to drink herself.

After she narrowly survived a hard-fought three-way race between herself, Richard Pope and a four-liter jug of Chablis, I had assumed that my fun at Hague’s expense was over.  But that was before I received an email from Bellevue businessman Paul Brecht, one of Pope’s most ardent supporters during his 2007 run for county council, informing me that he is suing Hague, her husband, and her campaign consultants for defamation of character.

The lawsuit stems from a nasty piece of direct mail Hague sent out, in which she not only attacked her opponent (and God knows our friend Richard offers a rich enough vein there), but she also personally targeted Brecht for having the temerity to publicly endorse him:

Problem is, Brecht was never convicted of assault, and as he points out in his complaint, he has never been “on the top of any ‘law enforcement list’ of any sort for any reason.”

Huh.

Defamation cases are awfully hard things to win in court.  For example, I could relentlessly accuse Hague of eating babies, and she could never win a defamation case against me because nobody in their right mind could reasonably believe that I was seriously accusing her of baby eating.  (Though, in fact, Hague does indeed eat babies.  Really.)  Or, I could falsely accuse her of taking bribes from Eastside developer Skip Rowley, and I’d be pretty much safe as long as I retracted the charge.  (Though I’d like to see Hague prove that she doesn’t take bribes from Rowley.  Huh? Betcha can’t, Jane.)

And let’s not forget that as a boozing, baby-eating public figure, Hague has even fewer protections against defamation than, say, an ordinary private citizen like Brecht.  Hague falsely and maliciously attacked Brecht’s character in retaliation for him endorsing her opponent, and while I’m not sure if her lies quite fit the legal definition of “defamation,” it certainly fits the common definition of being an “asshole.”

In any case, Brecht’s day in court is approaching, and he’s in need of an attorney now that Pope is likely to be called as a witness.  So if anybody wants to help out, drop me an email and I’ll hook the two of you up.

James Wolcott on the Sarah Palin train wreck.

After the bailout bill went down to a surprise defeat, largely due to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s inability to deliver the Republican votes he had promised, Boehner blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claiming that many members withheld their vote after she hurt their feelings by delivering a speech that was “overly partisan.” Um… it wasn’t.

The Republicans are a bunch of crybabies, and so it is fitting that in response, they got such a severe spanking at the hands of Rep. Barney Frank.

Chris Mulick has written his last blog post for the Tri-City Herald… or anything else for that matter, announcing that he’s turning in his press credentials tomorrow to take a public information post with the state Senate Democratic caucus.

I can’t point to one single reason that fueled this decision. There are many factors involved in the complex equation.

But certainly, the financial troubles plaguing this industry have created considerable uncertainty. And while the Herald has given me every assurance my job is safe in this bureau it’s unsettling how quickly the unthinkable has become reality in this business. With a young family, I’ve no choice but to risk jumping too soon. I simply can’t risk jumping too late.

Pretty soon the press houses in Olympia will consist of little more than Rich Roesler and Brad Shannon chatting with each other via a couple tin cans and a taut length of string.

Yet another Washington political reporter leaving the business, and only six weeks before one of the most consequential elections in history.  This really sucks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 777 points today at 10,365… 223 points below where it stood the day President George W. Bush took office.  That’s a 2.1% drop over Bush’s 7 years, 9 months in office, for an annualized return of -0.27% making him the first president to produce a negative annualized return since Herbert Hoover.  (By comparison, the DJIA produced annualized returns of about 28% during President Bill Clinton’s eight years in office.)

And compared to the other major market indices, the DJIA looks good.  The S&P 500 fell 8% today, and is now down about 21% over the Bush administration, while the NASDAQ Composite fell another 9%, for a stunning 40% decline during the Bush years.  To put that in perspective, a $100 investment in an index fund tracking the NASDAQ would now be worth only $48.50 in inflation adjusted dollars.

Remember, it was the Bush administration who declared a crisis that required an immediate bailout, it was Bush who put forth the original proposal, it was Bush who joined with Democrats on a bipartisan compromise, and it was Bush who ultimately failed to bring his House caucus with him.  Oh… and it was Bush’s failed economic policies and disregard for regulation that laid the groundwork for this mess.

So much for the “CEO president.”

UPDATE:
I’ve edited the DJIA numbers to reflect the actual close; apparently it was dropping so fast at the buzzer it took a while for the ticker to catch up with the trades.

The Seattle Times wants the gubernatorial candidates to talk about budget cuts:

GOV. Christine Gregoire and Republican challenger Dino Rossi said the right things about taxes: They both pledged not to increase them to fill the state’s projected $3.2 billion budget hole.

That is the only rational position for a state that cannot abide higher taxes at a time of such economic fragility.

Because nothing boosts the local economy like slashing spending and cutting jobs.

It is not the “only rational position” and the fact that they would phrase it that way is a window into the arrogant and dismissive attitude of the Times ed board.  It is a rational position—singular—but there are plenty of other rational economic positions, some even in favor of fiscal stimulus during an economic downturn.  There are strong arguments to be made for avoiding tax hikes, but to dismissively imply that all those who dare to argue point are “irrational” is both childish and insulting.

Furthermore, not all taxes and tax breaks are equal, each providing different economic incentives and disincentives.  For example, a gas tax holiday would only increase demand for expensive foreign oil, while eliminating jobs building and maintaining necessary transportation infrastructure.  Surely, amongst the billions of dollars in new tax exemptions granted by the legislature over the past decade, there are some that are not delivering to taxpayers the promised return.  Eliminating these nonperforming “tax expenditures” could contribute greatly toward balancing the next budget without any detrimental economic effect… though the knee-jerk, anti-tax Times would surely revile such a move as a tax hike.

I agree that the candidates need to start talking about what they intend to cut, but the Times’ efforts to dumb down and simplify discourse exclusively to a discussion of cuts, only serves to curb debate, not expand it, and is a disservice to their readers.

Rep. Jay Inslee was the only Democratic member of WA’s congressional delegation to vote against today’s Wall Street bailout bill.  Here is his statement:

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) voted against the $700 billion bailout package for troubled American financial markets in what he called “a vote of conscience.”

“The initial plan by Secretary Paulson was completely unacceptable, but the revised package was not much better,” said Inslee.  “For all the talk of protecting the taxpayer, there were only limited promises that the taxpayers’ $700 billion investment would be paid back and there were no provisions to help struggling homeowners.”

“If we authorize $700 billion in a bailout for Wall Street, we must ensure – and not just hope – that all the money gets paid back to the American taxpayer.  The plan we were presented with did not do that.  Also, I saw no real provisions in the revised plan to help stem the real cause of the crisis, which is the collapse in our housing markets.  We needed a pro-growth bill to stimulate the economy, and that was not what we got.”

“But now is the time for Congress to come together again and vote on a real, comprehensive plan that will solve the crisis while still protecting the taxpayers and restarting our economic growth.  I am prepared to stay here and in session as long as it takes, and I know many of my colleagues in Congress feel the same.”

“The American people deserve better.  I could not, with good conscience, vote for the bill presented to me.”

The vote is still open for arm twisting, but as of this moment the bailout bill is failing 199 to 223.  More coming…

UPDATE:
207 to 226… Dems 141-94, Republicans 66-132.  Time has expired, and members can be heard hollering for “regular order”… in other words, calling for the vote to be closed.

UPDATE, UPDATE (11:05AM):
The bailout bill fails 205-228.

UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
It should be noted that while there was a bipartisan rejection of the bill in its current form, President Bush could only muster about a third of House Republicans behind his proposal.  Considering the circumstances, this was about as close as we come in the US to a vote of no confidence, and was this a parliamentary system, our government would have just collapsed.  Fortunately, we have new elections already scheduled for six weeks from tomorrow.

WHAT’S NEXT?
The Dow is currently down 450 points at 10,692.  That’s not so surprising considering the gains at the end of last week had already built in anticipation of the bailout passing… and the expectation remains that a bailout plan, in one form or another, will eventually pass Congress, and probably soon.  Just not this one.

Again, I’m not necessarily opposed to some sort of rescue package, I just want one that focuses on the core problems, protects taxpayers, and doesn’t hamstring the Obama administration from effectively acting later, as this ongoing crisis unfolds.  If it takes another week or two to do this right, we’ll all be better off for it.

WA DELEGATION:
Aye: Baird, Dicks, Larsen, McDermott, Smith.  Nay:  Inslee, McMorris-Rodgers, Reichert.

And it should be noted that before the vote, Darcy Burner told the Seattle Times’ Emily Hefter that she would have voted against this package:

“We need to do something,” she said. But she said the compromise package being pushed by Democratic leaders in Congress doesn’t go far enough to protect taxpayers.

Burner said it doesn’t fix the underlying problems that caused the financial crisis, namely too much deregulation of the financial industry. And she said it doesn’t do enough to limit executive pay.

Burner’s opposition marks one of the first times she has come out against the House Democratic leadership, especially House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is championing the bailout package and has supported Burner’s Congressional bid.

It’s not really the first time Burner has opposed the House leadership, but it is the first time the press has reported it.  So I guess it’s easy to understand how Hefter might conflate the two.

And while I’m happy Reichert voted no, just listen to this pathetic interview gave this morning to NWCN, in which he answers every question with a question.  I dunno, it sure looks to me like he was waiting to see whether it would pass or fail before he determined how he was going to vote.

WA DELEGATION UPDATE:
Oops, forgot about Hastings, who also voted nay.  But then, who doesn’t forget about Hastings?

While the country’s attention is understandably focused on the financial sector bailout, the Justice Department has released a report (300 plus page PDF) on the politically motivated firings of nine U.S. attorneys, including John McKay, who was the USA for Western Washington. From the AP via The Seattle Times:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a prosecutor Monday to pursue possible criminal charges against Republicans who were involved in the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys.

His move follows the leading recommendation of a Justice Department investigation that harshly criticized Bush administration officials, members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which were seen by many as politically motivated.

Results of the investigation were made public Monday. The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico – among 9 prosecutors who were fired – as the most troubling.

Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, had complained about Iglesias’ handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, and that led to his firing, the report said.

That initial AP article doesn’t mention McKay, so a quick look at the report itself is in order. The voluminous report examines the McKay firing in extensive detail, including the demands made by a certain “association” and “an outside group,” in Washington state about the 2004 gubernatorial recount, doubtless referring to the BIAW and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, who were very public in their demands for McKay’s scalp.

Bottom line is that the key administration officials involved (Rove, Miers, Goodling, et al.) have managed to thwart the investigation to this point. From page 267 of today’s DOJ report: (bold added)

In sum, we could not determine whether complaints to the White House about McKay’s handling of the voter fraud allegations stemming from the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election contributed to his placement on the removal list, particularly without interviews of relevant White House officials.

The report castigates the administration in other conclusions regarding McKay’s firing. On page 268 it concludes that alleged concerns about sentencing statistics were not convincing:

In sum, this purported reason appears to be another after-the-fact rationalization for why McKay was included on the removal list. We believe that raising this claim in the briefing to Congress was misleading and cast further doubt on the Department’s credibility in providing the real reasons for the removals of the U.S. Attorneys.

And finally, the section about McKay’s firing reads like a finely-tuned legal document when it comes to whether McKay’s concerns about an information sharing system called LInX played a role. From page 269:

In sum, we believe the evidence suggests that Sampson placed McKay on the list for removal because of his actions in the LInX matter. However, the Department’s various descriptions of why McKay was removed severely undermined its credibility when it tried to explain its actions.

This thing isn’t over from what I can tell.

It seems like a simple question:  what is the purpose of mass transit?  And I have a feeling that how you answer this question goes a long way toward predicting how you’ll vote on Prop 1.

Personally, I believe that the purpose of mass transit is to move people from one place to another—between home and work and shopping and recreation, and back again—quickly, conveniently and affordably.  That’s why I prefer grade-separated solutions like rail: they’re fast, comfortable and reliable.  And I’m guessing that a majority of folks who support Prop 1 would give a similar answer.

The No folks, on the other hand, I’m guessing they see mass transit primarily serving a different purpose altogether, namely, relieving traffic congestion.  They don’t envision themselves using mass transit, but for the most part wouldn’t mind paying toward a cost-effective solution that got other people out of their cars and off the roads, preferably soon, and at the lowest possible cost.  Still, their primary concern being freeing up space on our crowded freeways, they’d prefer a more direct solution rather than paying a perceived premium for a transit system other people will use.

I think, perhaps, this may explain why the two sides so often seem to talk past each other.  One side sees transit primarily as a means toward easing traffic congestion for single occupancy vehicles, while the other sees transit commuting as an end in itself.

What do you think?

Dear Senators Murray and Cantwell, and Representatives Inslee, Smith, McDermott, Baird, Larsen, Dicks (and yes, Reichert and McMorris)…

Please don’t vote for this Wall Street bailout.  Not this bailout.  Not now.  Not with this administration.

Please… please… be skeptical.  Read James K. Galbraith.  Read Stirling Newberry.  But whatever you do, don’t get bullied or rushed into sinking $700 billion of taxpayer money into a bailout that won’t do anything to fix the fundamental problems at the heart of this financial crisis.  For that matter, don’t accept as a matter of fact that this is a financial crisis… at least, not the kind that requires you to cast a vote this week or risk a second Great Depression.

Ask questions.  Be prudent.  Ask even more questions.  Authorize, say, $150 billion if you really feel the need to do something now, to prop things up through the end of the Bush administration.  But don’t just vote yes on this bill because you’re afraid of voting no.  There is too much at stake, and it is not at all clear that this bailout plan will do anything but delay the inevitable, all the while lining the pockets of the already super-rich.

The problem, in the end, is that Americans simply consume more than we produce, and not a dime of the $700 billion the White House is requesting will do anything to address this core economic flaw.  We either have to produce more or consume less, or preferably, some combination of the two.  Austerity may not be a politically popular thing to talk about out loud… so don’t.  But you need to start talking about it privately amongst yourselves, and have this stark reality inform your vote.

So please… please… take your time.  Remember the Patriot Act.  Remember the Iraq War Authorization.  And don’t let yourselves be rolled by the Bush administration one more time.

UPDATE:
Call your Representative and Senators, 800-473-6711, and tell them to take their time and just say “no.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
On HuffPo, Dean Baker warns us not to be scared by “phony stories” about a second Great Depression:

[Read more…]

As Josh reported from Thursday’s gubernatorial debate, Dino Rossi voiced support for repealing Washington’s highest in the nation minimum wage (currently $8.05 an hour), tied to inflation by a citizen’s initiative.  Rossi told the Association of Washington Businesses:

”The minimum wage was not meant to be a family wage. It’s meant to be an entry level wage.”

Rarely during this campaign has Rossi made the mistake of publicly stating his position on an issue on which he is so out of step with voters.  Don’t get me wrong, Rossi is way out of step on a number of issues, he just refuses to talk about them, and so far our press has been mostly complicit in his silence.  But this time he spoke loud and clear, and one would think that reporters might follow up.

It’s encouraging to see the Gregoire campaign quickly respond with an ad; I just hope they continue to hit him on the minimum wage.  And harder.