HorsesAss.Org

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Bainbridge Island) was one of just 95 Democrats who broke ranks and voted against Monday’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout.  

Inslee was the only member of the Washington State Democratic delegation to vote against the bill. Indeed, one of his Democratic colleagues, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Tacoma), said: “Failure to act by Congress could turn a severe economic slowdown into a panic—a run on banks and all financial institutions that could plunge us into a deep and lasting recession.”

I spoke with Rep. Inslee on Tuesday to ask him about his rebellious vote. For starters, given that he voted ‘No,’ I asked him if he thought Rep. Smith was wrong? Did Inslee think it wasn’t really 1929? (His aide jumped in to let me know the stock market was up 485 points.)

Inslee said, “There is a risk that is real. We could have a substantial reduction in availability of credit. I think that risk exists. But that doesn’t mean any bill will do.” 

So, what was wrong with the bill, and did he have an alternative plan?

More important: If the Democrats couldn’t even pass a tempered Democratic rewrite of Bush’s original bailout, did Inslee really think they’d be able to pass something that a diehard liberal like himself could eventually support?

Inslee laid out three problems with the bill. 

1. He said it was “based on deficit spending,” and he could not support any more of Bush’s “exploding” deficit.

“It’s strike three,” Inslee said, adding it to a list that included Bush’s war in Iraq ($600 billion) and the Bush tax cuts.  

2. He said the bill was missing any “hard provisions” to guarantee that the public would get a return on the $700 billion loan. “We’re increasing the value of these corporations,” he said. “When we do that we should have defined shares, a defined X number of dollars in equity. This bill does not do that. And knowing the history of the Bush administration, they’re not going to be aggressive about ensuring [we get a return].” 

3. Finally, he said the bill didn’t address the real losers in 2008, not Wall Street , but middle class homeowners who were facing foreclosures. “The only way to do that is through bankruptcy courts,” Inslee said.  “We have to change the rules,” so borrowers, in concert with lenders, are able to rearrange the terms of loans. 

And is there the will or the votes on the Democratic side to do any of this?

Inslee said: “We get more Democratic votes if we do that.”

Monday’s vote was 228 to 205. 133 out of 198 Republicans voted against the bill. 95 out of 235 Democrats voted against it. One Republican didn’t vote. So, technically Inslee is right: The Democrats have numbers. 

Chastising Democratic leadership, Inslee said:  “A decision was made to get 100 or 80 Republicans to vote for it [65 Republicans voted for the bill]. That eliminates the necessity to do a good bill.” Inslee asks rhetorically: “And did we have a good bill?”

Inslee went on to say, in fact, that the Democrats had the leverage at the moment because “the President has to sign” a bill. “We have the power to negotiate with the White House.” 

Asked to distinguish his ‘No’ vote from the 133 Republicans who voted against the bill, including all three Washington State Republicans—Reps. Dave Reichert (R-Auburn), Doc Hastings (R-Pasco), and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Spokane), Inslee said he couldn’t speak for his GOP counterparts. 

However, a consistent theme on the GOP side was an aversion to big government. In a statement to the press, Doc Hastings, for example, said: “On the question of increased government intervention in the marketplace, I am just plain opposed to such a massive intrusion into the economy and the marketplace.” 

Inslee wants more regulation, not less.  

Later in the day, I asked Inslee if the idea being pushed by presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain—higher limits for insured bank deposits—an idea that’s breathed life into a Senate version (and that’s intended to make the House reconsider)—would win him over.   

His aide gave me this response: “That would be a step in the right direction, but he says he will make final decisions on his vote only after he sees the whole package. Higher FDIC credits could be an element of the new deal, but the Congressman and his colleagues are wrestling with a lot of other promising suggestions out there right now, too. His vote will depend on what the final package includes.” 

•••

Rep. Inslee’s webcasting bill (a bill that clears the deck so Internet radio sites can re-negotiate royalty rates with the recording industry) passed the Senate today. It passed the House last Saturday. It’s off to President Bush’s desk for a signature.  

Once again there is this irritating “off the hook” tone emanating from somewhere around my house. It’s not coming from inside my house, rather I think from the vicinity of the telephone pole right outside my back door.  I’ve noticed this tone periodically over the past couple months, and while perhaps it’s only a coincidence, it only seems to occur a couple minutes after I hang up my phone, usually after talking to one of my many terrorist comrades.  Weird.

Also, damn annoying.  So since I figure if somebody is tapping my phone they must also be reading my blog… could you please send a technician by to fix this damn thing?  It’s giving me a headache.

UPDATE:
The tone has stopped.  Thanks for the prompt service.

Politico’s Daniel W. Reilly, in an article speculating about which twelve Congress-critters might be persuaded to change their minds and vote for the Wall Street bailout, mentions a member from Washington state:

Rep. Doc Hastings(R-Wash.)

A moderate Republican, Hastings told the Yakima Herald that he was undecided until Sunday night. In the end, he said he voted no because there were still “too many concepts” and not enough details about taxpayer exposure.

Why, Hastings is not only moderate, I’d say he’s downright mavericky. From a quick interest group ratings search at Project Vote Smart:

2007 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 92 percent in 2007.

2007 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 74 percent in 2007.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Consumer Action 0 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 100 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the American Forest and Paper Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Associated General Contractors of America 90 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the International Warehouse Logistics Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers 100 percent in 2005-2006. The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the National Electrical Contractors Association 88 percent in 2005-2006.

Yep, that’s pretty darn moderate. If he gets any more moderate he’ll be duty bound to support mandatory $18 million golden parachutes for all executives of failed companies. The New Bi-Partisan American Capitalist-Communism has its own internal imperatives, after all.

Essential truthiness requires that “moderate” Republicans be identified to get this thing passed (NOW!!!!) on behalf of our “moderate” masters on Wall Street, at NAM and the Chamber, et al. Any delay will result in the threat of unreceived paychecks and the inability to satisfy consumer lust for luxury automobiles through 72-month loans. The latter is a prospect so terrifying that the only proper course is to curl into a fetal ball and start screaming “9-11” at the top of one’s lungs.

You know the drill by now. Duck and curl, as it were.

Don’t worry about the voters, most races for the House of People’s Deputies Congress are not truly competitive anyhow. Despite economic uncertainty please note the price of Victory Gin has remained unchanged for two weeks, and credit cards charging as little as 21% APR are now accepted at liquor control outlets.

Long live the Glorious People’s Bank of the Republic, where our friendly but oddly familiar-sounding motto is “You pay, we decide.”

Radley Balko has an interview with former DEA agent and “House of Death” whistleblower Sandy Gonzalez. The “House of Death” case involves an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent named Guillermo Ramirez Peyro who took part in torturing and murdering people (including one legal U.S. resident) while also being paid over $220,000 by the U.S. Government. After Gonzalez demanded some accountability for this disaster, he was pushed out of the DEA. The full interview is here.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some folks show up early to enjoy the fine cuisine.

For tonight’s activity, we’ll simply be reeling over the Buildergate scandal. No, not the Buildergate that has ensnarled Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and jeopardizes his re-election chances. Rather, the Buildergate scandal that has ensnarled gubernatorial hopeful Dino Rossi (R G.O.P. Party) and seriously jeopardizes his chances at nearly beating Gov. Christine Gregoire again, filing another lawsuit to overturn the election, and then offering another un-statesmanlike slam at the state Supreme Court in a resignation speech.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, McCranium should be announcing the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

COURIC:  “What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read…?”

PALIN:  “I’ve read most of them.”

Get that?  She couldn’t even name a single newspaper or magazine.  No wonder she’s so well informed.

For weeks I’ve been pushing the point that there is no state budget deficit, an argument, I was afraid, that was largely falling on deaf ears.  Until now:  “Rossi ad in error on state deficit – there isn’t one yet.”

That’s right, that’s the Seattle Times’ Bob Young setting the record straight (for the most part) on one of Dino Rossi’s erroneous and intentionally misleading campaign memes.

Dino Rossi is airing statewide radio and TV ads suggesting Gov. Christine Gregoire has ignored the state’s $3.2 billion budget shortfall.

The ads, titled “Denial,” never directly say that. But the ads repeat several times a Sept. 15 statement by Gregoire that “We do not have a deficit today.”

The ads assert the state has a deficit. A female narrator says about Gregoire: “Is she dishonest or is she in denial?”

The ad is inaccurate for this reason: The state is facing a projected $3.2 billion budget hole next year, but it does not have a deficit today.

The current budget, which runs to June 30, 2009, is balanced and the state has several hundred million dollars still in reserve. Part of the reserve is in a rainy-day fund that Gregoire pushed to create.

Exactly.  (Well, not exactly.  The $3.2 billion projected revenue shortfall is not for “next year,” it’s for the budget ending in 2011, that must be written next year.  But why pick nits?)

So why is this distinction so important?  Because when Rossi and the media repeat the imprecise term “budget deficit” voters understandably associate that with the hugeass federal budget hole created under the Bush administration (and about to be made even hugeassier with the impending Wall Street bailout), which is simply misleading.  Our state constitution prohibits deficit spending, and thus the next biennium budget will be balanced.  And the implied accusation that Gregoire has not been spending within our means is utter bullshit when she’s managed to sock away hundreds of millions of dollars of surplus.

So thank you Bob Young for taking this issue seriously—considerably more seriously than it was taken by the folks on your own ed board.

Above is an excerpt from the official minutes of the Master Builder Association’s (MBA) May 21, 2007 “chair officers meeting,” and that is the smoking gun that inextricably links Dino Rossi to the BIAW’s illegal fundraising scheme.  That is the heart of Buildergate.

Rossi called not one, but at least three MBA board members to solicit funds for “the BIAW’s war chest,” a war chest that was explicitly described at the MBA’s previous meeting as “a fund for Rossi.”  And it is clear, both from the context of this excerpt, and from the stated response to Rossi from MBA Second VP John Day, that the subject of those calls was indeed these solicited funds.

What should now be absolutely obvious to even the most objective observer is that Rossi was an active participant in the BIAW’s illegal fundraising scheme… a scheme for which the PDC found the BIAW guilty of multiple “egregious” violations of Washington’s campaign finance and disclosure laws, and which is now being prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office.

But it is important to note that even if the BIAW had scrupulously conducted its campaign within the letter of the law (and it didn’t), Rossi would still be guilty of a major violation of our campaign statutes, for it is absolutely positively 100% illegal (not to mention grossly unethical) for a candidate to coordinate activities with an independent expenditure campaign.

And by calling MBA board members and asking them to contribute to the BIAW’s “fund for Rossi,” that is exactly what Rossi has done.  The documentation is clear:  Rossi was an active participant in the BIAW’s illegal “independent” campaign, and to even attempt to assert that his actions did not rise to the level of coordination, simply beggars the imagination.

Dino Rossi has displayed a stunning and flagrant disregard for our state’s campaign finance and disclosure statutes… laws overwhelmingly passed by voter initiative.  The only question remaining is whether our local media will report on Buildergate as the major scandal it truly is, or if Rossi will be allowed profit from his unethical and illegal behavoir, remaining unpunished and unscathed until well past the November election.

Documents released today reveal that Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi was not only aware of the Building Industry Association of Washington’s (BIAW) illegal fundraising activities, but that he actively solicited funds on their behalf from at least one organization, the Master Builder’s Association (MBA).  According to a summary of events posted by attorney Knoll Lowney:

The MBA was one of the groups solicited for a donation. On April 30, 2007, BIAW President Daimon Doyle attended the MBA’s Board meeting to solicit a donation to BIAW’s campaign fund, which was considered a “Fund for Rossi,” according to Sam Anderson, the MBA Executive Director. Based upon a formula, MBA was targeted for a donation of over $570,000! The Board decided to table the request until the next meeting three weeks later, expressing concern that most MBA members were democrats and may not appreciate the donation and also about other pressing MBA expenses including building repairs.

When MBA leadership met next on May 21, 2007 at a “Chair Officers Meeting,” the discussion turned to BIAW’s pending request for campaign funds. While discussing the request, all three of the MBA’s top officers reported that they had received calls from Dino Rossi. The one call for which additional detail is provided clearly confirms that Rossi called to support a MBA contribution to the BIAW’s governor’s race war chest. The minutes leave no question that Dino Rossi spoke to this officer about whether and when MBA would give to the BIAW’s governor campaign fund. The officers receiving calls from Rossi were then-MBA President Doug Barnes, First Vice President Joe Schwab, and Second Vice President John Day.

The PDC has already found the BIAW and MBA guilty of multiple “egregious” campaign finance violations, and the Attorney General has subsequently filed suit.  And now we learn that not only did Dino Rossi know about the illegal fundraising, he actively solicited money for it.

This is a major scandal… the kind of scandal that could change the entire dynamic of this election.

More coming….

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.