Search Results for: inflation

Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing:  there is no state budget deficit.  There never has been, and there never will be.  Washington’s constitution simply does not allow deficit spending, so whatever the revenue forecast is when it is time to write the next biennium budget, and whoever is governor at the time, the budget will be balanced.

But that didn’t stop Dino Rossi from going on the attack during last night’s debate:

Rossi wasted no time blasting Gregoire’s record, accusing her of recklessly spending the state into a record deficit and presiding over a rising state unemployment rate. He also made note of her recent TV attack ads, which he said misrepresent his position on stem-cell research.

“She’s trying to distract us from the issues that most people in the state are talking about,” he said at the debate sponsored by the Seattle P-I, KOMO4 and the League of Women Voters. “Issues like this $3.2 billion deficit that she has created and she’s going to raise your taxes to solve.”

Again, there is no budget deficit, and both candidates have promised to balance the budget without raising taxes.  As for rising state unemployment, we are in the midst of a national recession, yet Washington continues to buck the trend by actually adding jobs to the state’s payrolls:

Washington had an estimated net gain of 1,300 non-agricultural jobs in August.

The number of non-agricultural jobs in Washington in August 2008 was 41,800 higher than in August 2007, a 1.4 percent increase. Nationally, jobs declined by 0.21 percent over the past year.

That’s a lower job growth rate than we’ve been accustomed to in recent years, but the reason our unemployment rate keeps rising is that people continue to move here for our relatively robust economy compared to the rest of the nation.  Meanwhile, our farmers are enjoying ample harvests and the best commodity prices they seen in years.

So all this talk about a $3.2 billion deficit is really misleading, and the media’s tendency to fixate on this number without thoroughly explaining it plays right into Rossi’s hands.  It is a revenue forecast for 2010-2011, which currently falls $3.2 billion short of the revenue needed to maintain state spending at its current rate of growth.  And as I’ve explained in the past, state spending has remained at about six percent of the state economy for more than decade, its growth more or less pegged to our state economy’s rate of growth, as measured in total personal income.

As explained in the Gates Commission report, and numerous other scholarly works on the subject, the economic number that most closely tracks growth in demand for government services is growth in total personal income, that is, total economic growth.  This is because (and perhaps counter to popular misconceptions) the majority of state and local government services are commodities, and we tend to increase our consumption of commodities as our income grows.  Roads, sewers, schools, courts, public safety, public health… these and other government services are all things we consume more of the wealthier we become, and thus personal income, not population plus inflation, is the best measure for tracking growth in demand for these services.

You can argue with me on this if you want, and perhaps there are economists who can explain these concepts more clearly than me, but both academia and reality are on my side.

So any accusation of reckless spending on the part of Gov. Gregoire is simple hyperbole.  During the Gregoire administration state spending grew at roughly the same pace as our economy, while managing to put hundreds of millions of dollars aside in a rainy day fund.  And where did the bulk of her spending increases go?  On education, where she fully funded two statewide initiatives calling for reduced class size and greater teacher pay… that is, she met the voters’ express demand for expanded government service.

And on taxes, well, both candidates promise to balance the budget without raising taxes, and I see no reason to believe one more than other.  Rossi accuses Gregoire of raising taxes during her administration, and it is true that she did raise the gas tax and reinstate the estate tax… but both of these measures were subsequently and overwhelmingly approved by voters at the polls.  If the argument is that Gregoire gave voters what they wanted, that’s a criticism she shouldn’t be shy of embracing.

And really, find me a Democrat who expects Gregoire to sign a tax increase… I betcha can’t.  Hell if House Speaker Frank Chopp is going to risk his meticulously crafted majority by pushing through an unpopular sales tax increase, so that’s not going to happen, and neither would a B&O tax increase during an economic downturn.  And I can tell you first hand that we fair tax advocates have pretty much given up hope of Gregoire embracing a sensible repeal of even a small fraction of the billions of dollars a year in questionable tax exemptions handed out to businesses and other special interests over the past decade.

And if you think that somehow Gregoire is going to embrace an income tax… well… I’ve got an eight-lane 520 bridge to sell you.

So what it comes down to in the end is not who will balance our next budget but rather, what will be their priorities.  Do we want a governor who has made education and children’s health care their number one priority during their administration, or a governor who proudly claims a budget proposal that cut health insurance for 40,000 kids?  Do we want a budget balanced by a governor who has made cleaning up Puget Sound one of the centerpieces of her second term, or by a governor who doesn’t believe in global warming, and who voted 99% with the orca-killing BIAW?  Do we want a budget balanced by a governor who actually believes it is the government’s proper role to deliver the services voters want, or do we want it balanced by governor who fully embraces the failed anti-regulatory, anti-government policies of George W. Bush?

Rossi complains that Gregoire’s efforts to talk about actual issues is a distraction from the campaign, but it is his and the media’s obsessive focus a deficit that isn’t, that is the real distraction.  There is no budget deficit. That is a fact.

But, of course, when have effective political campaigns ever been about facts?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down almost 450 points today, at 10,609.66… only 22 points higher than where it stood on January 20, 2001, the day George W. Bush took office.

Adjusted for inflation, a $100 investment in a DJIA index fund just before Bush took office would now be worth only $81… but that’s still better than the approximately $69 a similar investment would be worth, had you invested in the broader S&P 500, which now stands down 186.15 points, or almost 14% off its pre-Bush close, or the inflation adjusted $55 value of a $100 investment in the NASDAQ Composite, down a stunning 32% over President Bush’s seven and a half years in office.

But, you know, John McCain bills himself as “the greatest free trader” and “greatest deregulator” ever, so who better to trust to fix the underlying causes of this unprecedented financial crisis?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 504.48 points today, at 10917.51.  That’s only 329.92 points higher than where it stood on January 20, 2001, the day George W. Bush took office.

To put that in perspective, had you invested $100 in a DJIA index fund just before Bush took office, it would be worth about $83 today in inflation adjusted dollars.

But, you know, John McCain says “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” so there’s nothing to worry about.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average continued its bearish slide, closing this week at 11,100, near a two-year low, and inching ever downward toward the 10,587 mark where the market stood the day President Bush was inaugurated. For those who are keeping score, that’s a seven and a half year return of 4.8%, or only 0.65% annually.

To put that in perspective, had you invested $10,000 on inauguration day in an index fund that tracked the DJIA, it would be worth $8,568 today in inflation-adjusted 2001 dollars, compared to only $8,175 had you simply stuffed that money in a mattress.

What with no bottom in sight to the housing, banking, automotive and other industries, and one of the largest bank failures in US history making headlines yesterday, that mattress is beginning to look like a pretty savvy investment. Our Republican administration on the other hand… not so much.

Did you know that despite an increase of 13 cents a gallon over the past few years, Washington state’s motor fuel excise tax, as a percentage of the retail price of a gallon of regular grade gasoline, has actually fallen from about 21.9% in May of 1998 to about 9.6% in May of 2008? And did you know that at 36 cents a gallon, our state gas tax is still well below historic averages in inflation adjusted dollars?

Surprised?  I wasn’t.

Coming up, I’ll one-up Barack Obama and explain why we not only shouldn’t be cutting the gas tax, but raising it.  Dramatically.  Stay tuned.

Remember all those funny acronyms from last fall’s mainstream media coverage of the Roads and Transit campaign? YOE, for year of expenditure was a favorite of many of Seattle’s newspaper writers and columnists. They were fixated (examples here, here, and here) on slapping the Roads and Transit plan with as high a price tag as they could by including inflation into the total price tag of the plan, not just the price tag in current year dollars. By doing so, they held the Roads and Transit plan to a standard never before seen for a tax measure or capital construction program in our region.

Yesterday Dino Rossi released his transportation fantasy and said it would cost $15.5 billion in 2007 dollars. Keep in mind, that’s in last year’s dollars.

I have done a little bit of “back of the envelope” math (you know the kind that Rossi’s Republican, anti-light rail pals did when they fed the media their scary cost numbers on Prop 1) and the results I get are staggering. Rossi’s $15.5 billion plan, when you account for 4 percent annual inflation over a 30 year construction schedule, suddenly balloons to $50 billion dollars. And this doesn’t even include the interest on the bonds that would be needed to finance all of Rossi’s made up project cost estimates. So we would have to add all of the interest payments to the $50 billion number to get the true cost, well at least according to our friends in the “traditional media.”

You can do the math yourself with this handy little inflation calculator.

UPDATE [Lee]: This part from a post by Martin at the Seattle Transit Blog made me laugh:

So I looked to Dino Rossi’s Transportation Plan with hope and anticipation. I shouldn’t have. This document was first sent to me by a Gregoire operative; when your own campaign literature is being gleefully distributed by the other side, that’s a bad sign.

The Seattle Times editorial board urges Gov. Gregoire to be “careful” regarding the state budget…

Its additions were modest, and the $0.015 billion the governor vetoed was helpful in that regard. So was the $0.85 billion ending savings account. But these changes were on the top of a total — $33.7 billion in a two-year cycle — that was not modest. In four years, state spending has risen by 33 percent. […] Some of this spending was necessary. But the across-the-board spending has meant the state was not able to lower taxes in any substantial way.

Yeah, well, there are reasons to be careful regarding the state budget in the face of an antiquated tax system that virtually assures a longterm structural deficit, but not for the reasons the Times suggests. Indeed, every time they trod out Rossi’s intentionally misleading “33 percent” number — without offering readers the appropriate budgetary context — the Times does a great disservice toward the cause of fiscal stability.

Yes, the state budget has grown by about a third over the past four years, and no, that rate is not sustainable when compared to longterm budget forecasts, but our state government’s growth has absolutely been “modest” by any meaningful economic measure. In fact, a January 2007 analysis by the Washington State Budget & Policy Center clearly shows that general fund spending under Gov. Gregoire has merely followed the same trend established during the 1990s.

The Times would have you believe that it was the spending increase under Gov. Gregoire’s watch that is the anomaly, when in fact it was the slower spending growth during the national recession and tepid recovery that actually fell below historical growth levels. Gov. Gregoire’s budget merely returned the state to the established trend.

Indeed, as a share of the total state economy, Gov. Gregoire’s budget actually represents a reduced investment — a smaller share of state resources than any of the six budgets that directly precede it.

Anti-government/anti-tax critics can spout all they want about rising spending and per-capita tax increases, but those numbers are entirely meaningless when taken out of context… as they usually are. Read the academic literature and you will find that the most common metric used in comparative studies of government spending, and for analyzing the relative growth of both expenditures and revenues, is spending/taxation as a percentage of personal income.

The reason is twofold. First, the economic metric that most closely tracks long term growth in demand for government services is growth in total personal income. That is because many of the services provided by the government are commodities, and as personal income increases, so does consumption. As our state grows wealthier, demand for government services increases faster than population plus inflation.

The other reason to focus on personal income is that it is the only metric that tracks individual taxpayers’ ability to pay. The state invests in things like transportation and education and law enforcement — investments that provide the infrastructure necessary for our economy to grow and for all our citizens to prosper. Thus a spending increase, even when accompanied by an increase in marginal tax rates, does not increase the real burden on individual taxpayers if it results in a corresponding increase in personal income.

So how does our state stack up in terms of state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income? Again, according to the Budget & Policy Center, Washington currently ranks 36th nationwide… and falling.

There is a legitimate debate to be had over the proper size and scope of government, and the priority in which we make public investments, but it is fundamentally dishonest to enter this debate by reinforcing the common misconception that our state government is out of control, when by the most meaningful measure — the government’s total share of our state’s economic resources — even a four-year 33-percent increase represents a decline from historic trends. And it is equally dishonest to profess a concern for fiscal responsibility by focusing solely on budgetary expenditures while refusing to address the revenue side of the equation.

Washington state not only boasts the most regressive tax structure in the nation — one in which the bottom 20% of wage earners pay a whopping 17.6% of income in state and local taxes while the wealthiest pay only 3.1% — our tax system is also based on an antiquated, early 20th century model that over-relies on an ever shrinking portion of our 21st century economy: the manufacture and sale of goods. Economic booms can mask this structural deficit in the short term, but because our economic growth is increasingly occurring in sectors that remain un- or under-taxed, longterm revenue growth simply cannot keep pace with growth in demand for public services… at least not without raising marginal tax rates, shifting an ever greater burden on exactly those families who can least afford it.

The Times and other critics have repeatedly cautioned about unsustainable budget growth while refusing to articulate which programs and services they would see slashed, or displaying an ounce of willingness to discuss the kind of fundamental tax restructuring that might allow state and local government revenues to reliably keep pace with both economic growth, and with the growth in demand for public services. If the Times editorial board wants a smaller state government — if they want to see less per capita real dollars spent on education, transportation, law enforcement, children’s health care, and other essential services — they should just come out and say it; we would all benefit from an honest debate. But the sort of disingenuous budgetary “concern trolling” they display in today’s editorial adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

On the same day Washington was ranked amongst the top three most effective state governments, Gov. Christine Gregoire helped demonstrate how she made the grade by announcing revised plans that would replace the 520 floating bridge two years sooner and at as much as $700 million below previous estimates. Much of the savings come simply from accelerating construction, thus avoiding anticipated inflation of concrete and other materials.

The accelerated schedule is achieved through a number of means, including expediting the environmental permitting process and beginning construction on the rest of the 520 corridor sooner than originally planned, but much of it is due to advancing pontoon construction at two facilities simultaneously. Construction on smaller pontoons will now begin in 2009 at an existing facility in Tacoma, while construction on a new facility at Grays Harbor will begin in 2010, with production coming online the following year. Pontoons from both facilities will be floated through the locks, and into Lake Washington, where they will be assembled on site. This accelerated construction plan also has the ancillary benefit of creating hundreds of new local jobs at a time the national economy is headed into recession.

The proposal calls for a six-lane bridge — two general purpose lanes and an HOV lane in each direction — and will avoid the need for a draw span by raising the clearance on the Eastside approach. The bridge is designed to be expandable, with the ability to add new lanes or rail capacity by attaching a new row of pontoons to one side, and is now scheduled to be completed by the Fall of 2014, with full 520 corridor improvements to be finished by 2016. The total project will be financed by $1.7 billion in state and federal money, and as much as $2 billion in tolls.

In a letter to legislative leaders, Gov. Gregoire explained that the revised plan came in response to a request she made to WSDOT in January to explore all options for accelerating construction. Credit surely goes to WSDOT for rethinking the construction plan and finding the savings in both time and money, but credit also goes to Gov. Gregoire for pushing this process along.

Check out these two stories, and connect the dots.

Seattle Times:

An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices have, perhaps inadvertently, been driven up $200,000 by good intentions.

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher[…]

This is a popular talking point for some conservative or liberatarian think tanks, and it is often employed when attacking a certain landmark 1990 bill:

A key regulation is the state’s Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990 in response to widespread public concern that sprawl could destroy the area’s unique character. To preserve it, the act promoted restrictions on where housing can be built. The result is artificial density that has driven up home prices by limiting supply, Eicher says.

I want to sidestep the politics here and take you to Erica C. Barnett’s recent column in The Stranger:

Growth management—which calls for concentrating growth in areas that are well served by transit, encouraging people to live close to where they work, and discouraging or banning new sprawl that promotes driving and harms the environment—isn’t working.

[…]

Growth management needs teeth to work. That means smaller growth-management boundaries, real limits or even a ban on growth outside those boundaries, affordable housing incentives in cities and inner-ring suburbs, sensible policies to encourage trip reduction, and land-use decisions that encourage tall, dense developments in cities and already dense suburban areas.

First, a few thoughts about that UW study:

The nearly 200k they reference includes lots of things you’d hate to see eliminated from your neighborhood. Without money for sidewalks, parks, or schools, our neighborhoods would suffer. Without a design review, folks would go nuts at the idea of another condo building and no means to influence its design, adn that’s something we value. Growth is supposed to pay for growth, even if it bumps up the sticker price on one of those crappy Quadrant homes.

Erica does get a lot of things right. Cities should build more within their own boundaries, so that the ‘burbs look a bit more like the good neighborhoods of Seattle. Anti-density NIMBYs here in town shouldn’t get to hog the housing agenda. Also, transit isn’t a panacea for sprawl. Then again, nothing is.

The people buying houses in and moving to places in Snohomish and Pierce counties are doing so because that’s where they can afford to buy a house. (I’m guessing that King County is omitted because even the shitty parts of it are getting pricey.) It’s supply and demand; not enough of the former and too much of the latter. Adam Smith is biting us in the ass.

We have constricted our housing supply. I don’t think constricting it further would have the effect Erica is looking for. People have proven to us that they will drive for hours (with the price of gas not a limiting factor until it nears 10 bucks a gallon) just to get a three bedroom ranch-style for less than 250k. Some folks will want to live in the city in a townhouse or condo, and some will want the picket fence. Can’t help that.

[As an aside: I’ve noticed that some NIMBY-types from Seattle lash out at sprawl in the ‘burbs while at the very same time complaining about condos in our neighborhoods. As a person who’d like to live in the city and NOT drive miles to my job, I find it odd that Seattle’s urban closed mindedness could be just another cause of sprawl.]

The Dow plummeted 450 points this morning in early trading, as traders responded to a worldwide plunge in share prices over the MLK holiday, and a second straight day of near-record losses in the Asian markets. How concerned are the experts? The Federal Reserve attempted to fend off a US crash by slashing interest rates three quarters of a point just before the opening bell, prompting respected financial blogger Bonddad to describe the Fed as “Wall Street’s bitch.”

The problem is liquidity isn’t the issue — it’s counter-party risk. So long as lenders are

1.) Concerned about getting repaid on existing loans and

2.) Concerned that a party might now repay even a short-term loan

3.) In the middle of writedown hell.

Then loans aren’t going to get made. It’s that simple.

Also note the the effective Fed Funds rate is now negative. The yearly increase in inflation is 4.1% and the Fed Funds rate is now 3%, meaning the effective Federal Funds rate is in fact -1.1%. This is the situation that got us into this mess.

Of course, even an impending worldwide recession has its bright spot, with crude oil prices dropping below $88 a barrel in anticipation of reduced demand.

And by the way, in case anybody is keeping score, the Dow Industrial Index closed at 10,678 on January 18, 2001, the day President Bush was sworn into office. Last time I checked it was still below 12,000 points, even after recovering about half the early morning losses. A 12% return over seven years… below the rate of inflation. Wow. Those Republicans sure do know how to run the economy. (By comparison, the Dow closed at 3,242 on January 20, 1993, the day President Bill Clinton was inaugurated, more than tripling in value over Clinton’s two terms.)

We plead guilty to a certain shall we say crankiness when surveying the mainstream headlines for scraps of local edification, but hey folks, we’re just tryin’ to help. Our intentions are good, please don’t let us be misunderstood. So when we earnestly inaugurate a feature called Local Headlines That Ran Elsewhere, we’re not saying the headline or story never ever ran in local media. We’re merely pointing out recognition by the Outside World of our humble region. “Seattle Man Bites Renton Dog” in The New York Times is probably of interest no matter how many times the story has run in the P-I. And when we decry the lack of a Big Picture in local reporting, we’re merely suggesting that an awareness of, and linkage to, larger forces at play help provide a context to make readers care. “Cat Climbs Tree in Ballard Before Earthquake” is not nearly the story that “Thousands of Cats Throughout Northwest Take to Trees Before Earthquake” is.

If you are distraught at having stumbled into Journalism 100.5, then yes, you can correctly surmise that this is an extremely slow headlines day. I’m writing this at 12:30 a.m., waiting for The Times Web site to flip, the P-I having provided me with “Sometimes Scanners Get Price Wrong” (Good Lord, now I’ll never get to sleep!) and “Neuheisel Eyes Successful Return” (and even if I do, my worst nightmare will be confirmed). Of course, the scanner story doesn’t mention what to do when you’re undercharged, which in my experience happens more often. Leave it to the press to out one of consumers’ few weapons against rampant inflation. Hopefully Costco management won’t see this one.

I would be remiss not to tip my hat to Times senior political writer David Postman for his generous acknowledgment in The Stranger of my conversation with my daughter a week ago, wherein I informed her that our beloved Crocodile, where Franz Ferdinand, Turin Brakes, Tapes ‘n Tapes and so many other uncommercialized rising bands had provided so much personal joy and temporary deafness, was closing its sticky grimy doors. But this was hardly my scoop, as I noted in Tuesday’s headlines post. My only reason for bringing up the thing was to give The Weekly credit, which is more than our friends at Slog have. Not to slight them in the slightest: I was just thinking how wonderful it is to have Erica C. Barnett back rattling the cages at City Hall (which were notably undisturbed by any local media during her absence), so much so that I almost forgave her for taking yet another interminable vacation, this time with a paucity of posts that she blamed on lack of Wi-Fi. This of course being the current reporter’s “headache and flu” excuse after a night of carousing, my all-time favorite being, after a reporter called in with a bad back, his editor’s observation that the female reporter he was with the previous night was no doubt going to call in with a bad front.

At Erica’s age I was getting two weeks of vacation and wasn’t paid enough to go to Italy Barcelona, or even Austin. But it seems only fair that someone who does the work of three reporters get commensurate time off. Welcome back Erica. Now tell me what Conlin will do as the next Council president…

Ah yes, The Times site has flipped, and the lead is lead: High lead levels in kids’ jewelry, a lamentable but unsurprising development to HA readers of Goldy’s scoop yesterday, sprinkled liberally with insights and calls to action, the way real journalism is supposed to work.

Addendum: Somehow in my blurry-eyed mumblings I missed the P-I coverage of the homeless rally last night. Nothing in The Times, which apparently is content to stick with Nicole Brodeur’s boneheaded revelations of a couple weeks ago (although a search did turn up a creditable report on Gates Foundation efforts for homeless families). The best discussion of course resides at Real Change and its editor publisher Tim Harris’ great blog. Give an RC vendor a fiver next time around, it’s Christmas folks.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Special Session or Special Olympics?
Our Democratic leadership sure is “special” aren’t they, if they think a revenue cap below the rate of inflation is either good politics or good policy? The Stranger’s Josh Feit was down in Olympia for Thursday’s debacle and he joins us in studio for his first hand take and a discussion of the inevitable fallout.

8PM: Does WalMart have an obligation to treat its workers fairly?
A class action suit was filed this week, alleging as many as 75,000 were illegally denied overtime pay and work breaks. Tough shit for the workers? Or does WalMart have an obligation to treat them fairly?

9PM: Are we squandering America?
Robert Kuttner is the co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine, and the author of a new book, “The Squandering of America: How the Failure of Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity,” and he joins us in studio for the hour. With wages stagnating and the gap between the very rich and everybody else growing ever wider, Kuttner argues for a return to the “managed capitalism” that guided the great economic expansion from 1948 to 1973, an era during which the U.S. economy, wages, and incomes flourished, and a rising tide really did lift all boats. Kuttner appears tomorrow night, 7:30 PM at Seattle’s Town Hall, for a book reading and signing.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

I’ll save the venting for tomorrow night’s show when The Stranger’s Josh Feit will join me in studio to give his first-hand account of the proceedings at yesterday’s special session, and the inevitable fallout from the Dems’ boneheaded political blunder. But I just want to take time to thank those Democratic legislators who stood up to the political pressure, and voted against rashly reinstating I-747’s unsustainable and irresponsible one-percent cap on regular levy revenue growth.

Yesterday I wrote, “I’d be surprised if a majority of the Seattle delegation didn’t vote to approve the governor’s plan,” and, well… I was wrong. There are six legislative districts that represent Seattle, for a total of twelve representatives and six senators. Of those, only one senator and four representatives voted for the bill, with two representatives excused and not voting. A total of eleven Seattle legislators cast votes against the bill: Senators Ken Jacobsen, Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Joe McDermott and Ed Murray, along with Representatives Mary Lou Dickerson, Sharon Nelson, Jamie Pedersen, Eric Pettigrew, Sharon Tomiko Santos, and Helen Sommers. I was particularly proud that my entire 37th Legislative District Delegation — Kline, Pettigrew and Santos — voted against the bill.

Only a handful of non-Seattle legislators bucked the governor’s pressure to quickly pass dumb policy. In the House, special kudos go to Rep. Geoff Simpson of Covington, who voted his conscience despite the fact that his district overwhelmingly supported I-747, and despite the fact that he feared this vote could potentially end his political career.

“I’m not here to make decisions based on whether or not I’ll get re-elected,” he said. “I’m here to make decisions that are good public policy … 747 is not good public policy.”

Simpson said local government can’t be expected to provide high quality services when revenues are not keeping pace with the rate of inflation.

While he was aware of the risks, Simpson said he hoped voters in his district would consider the sum of his voting record, not just this one vote.

That’s what representative democracy is all about. In the Senate, Craig Pridemore of Vancouver made a similar principled stand, again, knowing the political risks coming from a district that overwhelmingly supported I-747:

“I’m a former county commissioner. I know the impacts this will have on local government, law enforcement abilities, and all of the other critical local services. I can’t vote yes for that,” he says.

No doubt Pridemore and Simpson’s opponents will attack them as arrogant and out of touch, but this is exactly the sort of principled leadership voters so often decry as missing in our elected officials. If we want our legislators to mimic the polls rather than make informed decisions, we might as well just eliminate the Legislature entirely.