I just received word that Timothy Garon passed away this afternoon. I’ve said what I’ve needed to say about what happened to this man. There’s a lot of tragedy in this world, but it’s especially tragic when people who we don’t expect to be among the ranks of the willfully ignorant bring about a result like this.
It’s also a reminder for those participating in the 2008 Global Marijuana March on Saturday that there’s still a long way to go.
Dino Rossi has tried to create some media buzz touting his fundraising prowess, but now the TNT’s Niki Sullivan reports that while Gov. Chris Gregoire hauled in over $1 million in April, Rossi’s people don’t sound quite so confident:
I talked to challenger Dino Rossi’s campaign this morning — they tell me they’re also still counting, and that Rossi missed out on some precious fundraising time while he peddled his transportation plan around the state.
Is touring the state not fundraising? Was the comment a way to soften the blow of a soft month? I don’t know, but I’ll find out and then tell you all.
Well, at the very least it’s an effort to downplay expectations, but I love the fact that Sullivan routinely uses her TNT blog to ask the kind of cynical, connect-the-dots questions typical of, um, bloggers.
I sure had my fun at Kirby Wilbur’s expense yesterday, pointing out the rather amusing flaw in the language of the new tax cutting initiative he’s promoting, which ends up slashing property taxes by an astounding 99.4 percent, rather than the mere 30 percent reduction he promised his KVI audience.
To be fair, Kirby emailed me to explain that the text of the initiative was written by Floyd Brown and Wynn Cannon, adding “I favored a different approach when asked.” If that different approach includes a revenue-neutral property tax homestead exemption or circuit breaker, I’d be happy to join him in a bipartisan crusade for tax fairness. I genuinely like Kirby, and I think we’d make a great team.
That said, I think that the text of Initiative 1030 offers a textbook example of the follies of our initiative process, and of our Republican tax-cutting crusaders in general, for if you don’t understand the difference between, say, an “assessed value” and a “property tax,” then you really have no business rewriting our tax code.
For example, while I-1030’s unfortunate miswording may provide the initiative’s most amusing flaw, it is far from its most fatal, for though virtually eliminating the property tax altogether without offering an alternative revenue source would be a public policy disaster, it is not technically unconstitutional. The means by which I-1030’s authors seek to do so however, is.
Here is I-1030’s pertinent subsection, which would apply to “all taxes levied and collected in tax year 2009 and thereafter.”
The assessed value of property for all privately owned real property must not exceed the property tax on the same property for the tax year ending December 31, 2008, reduced by thirty percent. The reduction provided in this subsection may not shift property taxes. The regular levies of all taxing districts shall be reduced as necessary to prevent the values exempted under this subsection from resulting in a higher tax rate that would have occurred in the absence of the reduction.
Ignore for a moment the comical miswording that sets the “assessed value” to the “property tax” less thirty percent (I assume they mean to set it to the assessed value less thirty percent), and the vague, pseudo-legal mumbling about not shifting taxes. The intent of the initiative is to reduce the assessed value of all parcels of real property to 2008 levels less 30 percent (or, 99.4% as the case might be), and then freeze them at that assessed value “thereafter.” The problem with this approach (other than that it is just plain dumb policy) is that it clearly violates the uniformity of clause of Article VII, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution: “All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property…”
Since the “fair value” of different properties rise (or fall) at different rates, I-1030 would immediately violate the uniformity clause, providing an effectively lower tax rate on fast appreciating properties than on those whose fair value has appreciated at a slower rate, or even declined. This is an issue that has already been well adjudicated by the courts, and any serious tax cutter would never have pursued this approach had he done his homework.
I-1030 also neglects to note that “real property” consists of both the land value and the improvements upon it (you know, like your house or a 50-story office tower) and thus fails to address the thorny issue of how its provisions apply to new construction. Either new construction is assessed at fair market value while all other property remains at 2008-less-30% levels—a clear violation of the uniformity clause—or, assessed value of all parcels remain frozen in time in perpetuity, regardless of the huge disparity in the value of improvements subsequently made upon them, which is also a, um… clear violation of the uniformity clause.
Not to mention, just plain stupid.
This kind of amateurish legislative hackery is actually typical of initiatives of this ilk, which explains why so many of Tim Eyman’s measures have ended up being thrown out by the courts. But I-1030 is worthy of fisking despite its laughable language and its fatal congenital defects, because it is crap like this that routinely manages to distort the public debate on property tax reform in the absence of substantive proposals from the Democrats in Olympia.
Coming up, I-1030’s authors’ ignorance of our tax system and the laws that govern it is illustrated further by a critique of the initiative from a policy perspective.
What?! You mean Rep. Dave Reichert really isn’t a moderate? The Politico reports:
It is a pattern. Many of his moderate moves turn out to be pretty empty upon closer inspection.
In fact, Reichert has reversed his vote on “moderate” bills a whopping 25 times this Congress. Why would a politician expose himself to charges that he was for a bill before he was against it?
According to an analysis of House procedure by local blogger Dan Kirkdorffer, Reichert often votes with Republicans on every procedural step for a bill, but if it is headed for passage anyway, he reverses himself on the final vote. The crass objective is to get credit from gullible reporters for backing some Democratic legislation.
Take the Democrats’ renewable energy bill. Reichert voted with Republicans to thwart the legislation five times. On Feb. 27, he voted to kill it one last time; when that failed, he turned around on the same day and voted for the final bill, with only 16 other Republicans.
These are facts, not opinions, and if our local reporters and columnists want to continue aping Reichert’s campaign propaganda, the least they could do is examine the facts and offer an alternative interpretation before once again touting his supposedly “moderate” voting record. To do otherwise simply serves to deceive the voters of the Eighth Congressional District.
Dan Kirkdorffer has been relentlessly pushing his analysis since the 2006 campaign, and while it is heartening to see a professional journalist finally examine the data, it is disappointing that the scrutiny had to come from the D.C. press corps rather than our own backyard. No doubt Dan is at least as partisan as I am, but facts are facts and they stand for themselves.
KVI host Kirby Wilbur introduced his new property tax initiative yesterday, and man would it save homeowners a lot of money. In fact, when I apply the math to my own house, it looks like my property tax bill would be reduced by a stunning 99.4 percent!
Initiative 1030, Section I(1) reads as follows:
The assessed value of property for all privately owned real property must not exceed the property tax on the same property for the tax year ending December 31, 2008, reduced by thirty percent.
For 2008 I received a property tax bill from King County for a total of $3,953.21 on an assessed taxable value of $433,000… a rate of about 0.91298 percent. So, according to the text of Kirby’s initiative, the new “assessed value” of my property would equal “the property tax on the same property for the tax year ending December 31, 2008″ (that’s $3,953.21), reduced by a further thirty percent. Multiply my new “assessed value” of $2767.25 by my 0.91298 percent levy rate and my tax bill for 2009 would be a somewhat more manageable $25.26.
Talk about putting money back in my pocket. How could I not vote for that?
Perhaps that wasn’t exactly what Kirby intended, but then, perhaps he should have consulted a lawyer before writing, you know… a law.
A quick follow-up to my earlier post about the Wild Sky wilderness area, and why when it comes to environmental issues, the only thing you need be concerned with is the little “R” or “D” next to a candidate’s name.
Case in point, Rep. Dave Reichert, who managed to generate paragraphs of positive press for himself through his sponsorship of a bill to expand the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area within his home district. The Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly and I have a friendly disagreement on this subject. Joel thinks Reichert deserves credit and support for his Alpine Lakes initiative, whereas I think he’s just an insincere poseur, seeking to puff up his environmental credentials in a very green district. But all that’s really beside the point, because when it comes to environmental protection, intentions are much less important than ability.
Reichert sure talks up his environmental credentials, but since introducing his bill back on November 8, 2007, he has managed to secure exactly zero co-sponsors in the House. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. He hasn’t even persuaded a single Republican colleague to sign on, and it’s not at all clear that he’s even tried. I’d say that speaks volumes both about the seriousness of his efforts to push this bill forward, and his ability to actually do so.
Compare that to Rep. Jay Inslee’s bill to protect roadless areas of our national forests, on which he has managed to garner 149 co-sponsors, including a number of Republicans (not one of which happens to be self-proclaimed environmentalist, Dave Reichert).
Of the 33 bills Reichert has proposed since being elected to the House in 2004, the two-term congressman has managed to pass exactly none; not exactly a record of legislative accomplishment. And as for his supposedly “moderate” voting record on environmental and other issues, Daniel Kirkdorffer at On the Road to 2008 has ably chronicled Reichert’s pattern of joining Republican caucus efforts to block, castrate and scuttle legislation, only to flip his vote once the battle is lost and the local media is paying attention to final passage. (You know, except for ANWR, where Reichert very publicly opposed drilling in numerous procedural votes, and then voted for drilling when it finally mattered.)
But if our local media isn’t reading between the lines of Reichert’s voting record, corporations and special interest PACs are, with oil companies contributing $60,000 to Reichert’s coffers since 2004, and the timber industry giving almost $14,000 this cycle alone. I’m one of those who believe that political money usually follows voting records, not the other way around, but either way it tells you where oil and timber interests think Reichert stands on the environment.
I suppose the best you could say about Reichert’s impact on environmental legislation, serving within a Democratic controlled House, is that he at least appears to be harmless. But if you’re an 8th CD voter who supports a more progressive environmental agenda, you may want to consider electing a representative who is capable of making actual progress.
Is it acute media silliness or has the Rev. Wright issue now cost Obama the election? Should a prescription for medical marijuana come with a death sentence? Do Americans have something to learn about war from Europeans? (Are we traitors for even contemplating such a thing?). Will Sound Transit take the road less traveled? Is Dino’s fantasy transportation plan going to put him on the fast track to Olympia or board him on a bus back to Bellevue?
Goldy and friends dig into these savory questions over a pitcher of beer at the Montlake Ale House.
Goldy is joined by Geov Parrish, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly. Carl, and Lee.
The show is 55:10, and is available here as a 51.7 MB MP3.
[Audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_april_29_2008.mp3]
[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]
I’ll be on KUOW’s The Conversation today at about 1:30 PM 1:10 PM (?), for what I believe may become a weekly segment of media criticism um… critique. Topics of discussion will include our local media’s deficient coverage of the crackpots at the Discovery Institute, and the incessant trivialization of the presidential campaign.
UPDATE:
Here’s a link to the Wedge Document.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
Did Eric Earling really attempt to defend discussing Intelligent Design? I think I’ve lost a little bit of respect for him.
UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
Not my best on-air performance. I think I need a corded phone and a little less caffeine.
State Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-47) was arrested over the weekend on a domestic violence charge. He’s just issued the following public statement:
This is an unfortunate situation for everyone involved. The end of a marriage is an emotional and trying time for any family, and mine is no exception.
As a firefighter and first responder, I have witnessed the reality of domestic violence and provided care for many victims.
As a state legislator, I remain strongly in support of erring on the side of protecting potential victims with our laws and their enforcement – even when, in situations like mine, it can result in unwarranted charges. I am confident that once the facts come to light I will be exonerated.
I believe in our justice system and will continue to cooperate fully as this situation is resolved.
The details are sketchy, and I’m told neither Simpson or his ex-wife are talking publicly on the advice of their lawyers, but as I understand it, the arrest came after police were called to the ex-wife’s house while the two were having an argument. No actual physical violence was alleged or observed, but state law apparently provides police officers little discretion under these circumstances, even when all parties involved do not want the arrest to happen.
Or so I’m told.
The acrimonious nature of Simpson’s divorce is no secret, which makes this situation doubly difficult for Simpson even if he were to be completely exonerated. An outspoken progressive representing a swing district, Simpson’s reelection was never expected to be a cakewalk; his arrest will certainly make him one of the state GOP’s primary targets… assuming he continues to run for reelection.
And should he not be exonerated… well, domestic violence is inexcusable behavior, regardless of party affiliation or ideology.
When it comes to jumping into the world of campaign management, our friend Will certainly can pick ’em. But then, who doesn’t like a challenge.
The dead tree editions of both of Seattle’s dailies feature stories on yesterday’s passage of legislation creating the Wild Sky Wilderness Area, here, here and a rare front page column by Joel Connelly here. Nine years in the making, the bill protecting 106,000 acres in the North Cascades was repeatedly blocked by Republicans until, well, the Republicans finally lost their ability to block the bill, along with their control of Congress.
Creation of the wilderness had been blocked in the House for years by Congressman Richard Pombo, a powerful California Republican who said some of the land wasn’t pristine enough to warrant wilderness protection. But Pombo was unseated in 2006 as Democrats regained a majority in the House, and Wild Sky was revived.
For me, this raises an important point on which Joel and I agree to disagree: that in the current political environment, the most important thing environmentalists need to know about any candidate is the little “R” or “D” next to their name.
Peter Jackson, a Seattle writer, mused over the fact that 117 Republicans in the House voted against the Wild Sky legislation. He is the son of Sen. Henry Jackson, a Democrat who crafted landmark environmental legislation in negotiation with a Republican-run White House.
“We have to convince members of the party of George Bush that they’re also members of the party of Theodore Roosevelt,” Jackson said. “To borrow from a relative of mine, in matters of wilderness, the best politics is no politics.”
Perhaps Dave Reichert really does support Wild Sky—it would have been political suicide for him to oppose it—but he sure as hell didn’t do anything to move it forward when his own party was in control of the process. That’s because the GOP is institutionally opposed to government mandated conservation even on government lands, as evidenced by the majority of House Republicans who still voted against this popular bill despite the obvious futility of their opposition.
Joel is an encyclopedia of Washington state political lore and wisdom, and I don’t doubt his tales of bipartisan cooperation on environmental issues. But that was a different era, and as Peter Jackson points out, a different Republican Party.
Albert Hofmann, the father of LSD, is dead at age 102. Freaky.
Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, although some of us will show up a little early for dinner.
While you’ve got Drinking Liberally in mind, check out the Tri-City Herald‘s write-up of the blogosphere’s newest media darling, Jimmy of McCranium, and the Richland chapter of Drinking Liberally. Better yet, stop by and have Jimmy buy you a beer (or ten) at O’Callahan’s, in the Shilo Inn, 50 Comstock Rd, in Richland.
If the Seattle and Richland chapters are out of your commuting range, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.
I received an email from a reader complaining that my earlier post about pigeons was in “shockingly poor taste.” (Obviously, a first time reader.)
So in the service of good taste, I offer up this yummy sounding recipe for Glazed Roast Squab.
- 2 squab, about 12 ounces each
- 1 teaspoon salt
- 1/2 cup cilantro sprigs
- 2 scallions, finely shredded
- 2 tablespoons finely shredded ginger
- 2 tablespoons thin soy sauce
- 1 tablespoon black soy sauce
- 2 tablespoons Shao Hsing rice cooking wine
- 1/2 teaspoon sugar
- 1/2 teaspoon distilled white vinegar
Remove any fat pockets from the squab. Rub squab with salt. Rinse the squab under cold water and thoroughly pat dry the cavity and skin with paper towels.
In a medium bowl, combine cilantro, scallions, ginger, thin soy sauce, black soy sauce, rice wine, and sugar, and stir to combine. Place half the cilantro, scallions, and ginger in each of the cavities and smear the soy sauce mixture in the cavities and on the outside of the squab. Marinate 30 minutes.
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Pour 1/4 cup boiling water into an 8-inch glass baking dish and place the squab breast-side down in the dish, reserving the marinade. Roast 30 minutes and turn the squab breast side up, basting with reserved marinade. Roast 30 more minutes. Baste with marinade in pan and cook 15 minutes more, or until squab are golden brown and just cooked.
Drizzle 1/4 teaspoon of vinegar on each squab. Allow squab to rest 10 minutes before chopping into bite-sized pieces. Serve immediately.
Yes, “squab” is indeed pigeon, and yes, I have eaten squab, and my only real complaint is that they’re too small.
Former Mercer Island mayor Aubrey Davis is no crank, and when it comes to regional transportation issues he sure as hell knows what he’s talking about. I once had the opportunity to watch him moderate a candidate forum on transportation, and there didn’t seem to be a single detail he didn’t have at his fingertips.
So when Davis, also a former chairman of the Washington State Transportation Commission, critiques Dino Rossi’s transportation “plan” as he does in today’s Seattle Times, his is a voice of wisdom and experience that deserves a good listen.
“To stay on track,” Aubrey argues, “we must pursue transportation projects that are affordable, doable and forward-thinking. Dino Rossi’s proposal is none of the above.” And to prove his point he focuses on “two serious flaws” in the Rossi plan: an eight-lane 520 bridge, and the lack of transit options for the East King County.
I spent several years chairing a regional 520 executive committee that produced a very strong east-west consensus on the six-lane alternative with later capability for additional high capacity transit. […] Engineering studies show that dumping eight lanes of traffic from 520 onto an already congested I-5 and I-405 would virtually shut down both freeways and create gridlock across the region. I-5 and I-405 would become the most expensive parking lots on Earth. Connecting an eight-lane 520 to I-5 and I-405 would be like trying to connect a fire hydrant to a garden hose, and the ones getting wet would be us, the taxpayers.
It has been estimated that billions of dollars in new lanes on I-5 and I-405 would be needed to make this fire hydrant-to-garden hose connection that Rossi proposes even remotely possible. These costs are not accounted for in Rossi’s plan and funding is not available.
And oh yeah… Rossi’s claim he can build an eight-lane bridge for less than the planned six-lane alternative…? Davis says it’s a crock of shit. (Though not exactly in those words.)
The second serious flaw is Rossi’s proposal to “hijack” Sound Transit money currently reserved for Eastside transit, and spend it on state highways instead. Davis says this proposal is not only illegal, but ill-conceived.
By taking money dedicated to East King County light rail and express buses and spending it on highway lanes, Rossi is in effect telling this generation of Eastside residents that light rail and superior bus service aren’t in our future, ever. With our region approaching $4 a gallon gas, we need more transit options, not fewer.
Anyone who has even just peeked across the lake at the massive construction cranes dominating the city of Bellevue’s skyline knows that Bellevue is a city growing toward a 2050 land-use and community vision, not a 1950s automobile-dominated past. With more downtown workers and residents, Bellevue and its surrounding Eastside cities need more transit service, not less. Rossi’s transportation proposal would give East King County 50 more years of the same crowded highways and limited choices for getting to work, school and home.
I know the conventional wisdom was that by pitching a transportation plan—any plan—Rossi would push Gov. Gregoire back on her heels on one of the highest profile issues concerning regional voters today. But I’m pretty confident voters know that they can’t commute to work on promises and pixie dust, and with near universal condemnation and/or ridicule coming from the local media, they now understand that’s exactly what the Rossi “plan” offers.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!