HorsesAss.Org

Communities Against Payday Predators (CAPP), a coalition of labor, veteran, consumer and church groups, is attempting to rein in payday lenders, who currently charge interest rates as high as 391-percent. A bill by state Rep. Sherry Appleton (D-Poulsbo) would have capped the rate at 36-percent, but the committee chairman with jurisdiction has refused to hold a hearing.

A bill that would slash the interest rates charged by payday lenders appears dead after a key committee chairman said the proposal won’t get a hearing.

“I want to do this in baby steps,” said Rep. Steve Kirby, who leads the House Insurance, Financial Services and Consumer Protection Committee. “I have to be a little more thoughtful on these issues than someone who is not on the committee and just puts a bill out there.”

Rep. Kirby has introduced his own reform bill which I believe has something to do with prohibiting payday lenders from breaking the kneecaps of defaulters. I suppose that’s a start.

“It is certainly a better attempt at good regulation than what is being proposed by Rep. Appleton,” said [Money Tree CEO Dennis Bassford], who leads one of the state’s largest payday-lending chains.

He and Money Tree Vice President David Bassford donated $1,200 to Kirby’s last political campaign.

Um… and there are those who argue that public financing of elections would endanger our Democracy.

UPDATE:
As has been pointed out in the comment thread, there are now more payday lenders in WA state than there are Starbucks. Not bad for a local industry that didn’t exist 12 years ago.

Oh… and guess which legislative district has the highest number of payday lenders? Rep. Kirby’s 29th LD. I’m just sayin’….

Editorial page writers like to think of themselves as solemn defenders of the public debate, but really, they’re just as childish and petty as the rest of us. How else to explain three editorials in recent days devoting precious column inches towards ridiculing state Sen. Ken Jacobsen for introducing a bill that would allow dogs in bars?

Dismissiveness is the rhetorical tool of choice as the Seattle Times mocks the bill as “the silliest piece of legislation this session,” while the Seattle P-I incredulously asks “Bringing dogs to bars? Whose idea was that?“ The lede in the Everett Herald adopts the same scornful tone, asking: “Scooby-Doo, where are you?“

No doubt this is one of the least important issues facing legislators this session, and I gotta admit it’s kinda funny. I actually support granting bar owners the freedom to welcome dogs (few bars would,) but hell, even I couldn’t resist making fun of this bill. But then, I’m just some blogger, not the editorial page editor of one of the state’s largest newspapers.

I guess my question for these editorial boards is, if the issue is so frivolous and foolish, um… why are you wasting so many scarce column inches debating it?

There are many, many important issues that never get a proper public debate because they’re too wonky or boring or difficult to explain (to readers and editorialists alike.) But dogs in bars? Damn… three editorials in as many days. If you wonder why politicians push bills like this, perhaps it’s because this is what editorialists choose to write about? It reminds me of the Times editorial that abused me for having “successfully placed the phrase ‘horse’s ass’ into dozens of family newspapers.”

As if I held a fucking gun to their heads.

Sure, it’s a helluva lot of fun ridiculing politicians, don’t I know it. But my advice to our state’s editorial boards is that if you want to maintain your reputation as solemn defenders of the public debate, you better start playing the part.

Attack the real issues, but leave the snarkiness to us bloggers. That’s what we do. (And we do it better.)

It was only Luke Esser’s first official day as Washington State Republican Party chair, and he still found time to stop by and chat with Seattle Times reporter David Postman. What a media friendly guy.

Luke Esser stopped by the office in Olympia today. He was here visiting the House and Senate Republican caucuses on his first day as chairman of the party. He is also still working for Attorney General Rob McKenna, but will be phasing out of that job over the next couple of weeks.

Um… am I missing something here? Is Esser on the state payroll and visiting caucuses and reporters in his official capacity as WSRP chair? Is this ethically kosher? Is it even legal?

That’s the very legitimate question raised by Particle Man over on Washblog, but which doesn’t seem to have piqued the interest of any of our friends in the capitol press corps. Far from being in Olympia to visit caucuses and reporters, you’d think Esser might be there earning the $84,000 a year salary state taxpayers pay him for whatever he does in the Attorney General’s office. And you’d think maybe that chatting up Postman about party business while on the taxpayers’ dime might raise a few eyebrows, if not some sort of ethics complaint.

Of course, don’t expect any sort of investigation from State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has long been Esser’s patron, political and otherwise. It was McKenna who maneuvered to remove Diane Tebelius as WSRP chair, and McKenna who championed Esser for the post. It is also McKenna who has been Esser’s longtime employer, giving him taxpayer funded jobs first with the King County Council, and then with state AG’s office. Sweet.

RCW 42.17.128 specifically prohibits using public funds for political purposes, and RCW 42.17.130 prohibits using “public office or agency facilities” in political campaigns, defining such as including the “use of employees of the office or agency during work hours.”

So I called Esser and asked him if he took Monday off, and he said no, but that he did take off some “personal hours” that day to conduct party business. Hmm. I have no reason to doubt Esser, and assume that if somebody were to request documentation there must be some kind of time card or something… dated prior to our 11AM, 2/1/2007 conversation.

But that’s really beside the point. Esser is now the WSRP chair, a full-time political job, and as such it is totally inappropriate for him to continue to collect a state paycheck. I know it is customary to give your old employer at least two-weeks notice, but I’m pretty sure McKenna would understand… especially considering the fact that he is kinda-sorta Esser’s new employer as well.

McKenna installed his man Esser as state GOP chair, yet continues to pay him as the “Outreach Director” at his state government office — doesn’t that at the very least create a perception of impropriety? You know, enough to raise an editorial eyebrow or two?

In recent weeks I have written quite strongly about the proposed gaming compact between the state and the Spokane tribe, warning that it could dramatically expand gambling in Washington state, and cautioning Gov. Chris Gregoire about the potential political consequences should she approve it. It is no secret that I am not a fan of the gaming industry. Knowing what I know about the economic, social and emotional costs of gambling addiction, I oppose any expansion of gambling in Washington state.

That said, I had the opportunity Tuesday to speak at length about this issue with Gov. Gregoire’s Chief of Staff Tom Fitzsimmons, and after poring over the details I must admit that the Spokane compact is not as bad as I had at first feared. It will still expand tribal gambling in WA state, but not nearly as massively as initial press reports had suggested.

To understand the compact and its potential impact one must first understand the basic legal principles governing tribal gaming. Federal law states that tribes may engage in the same gambling activities already legal in the state, and that if requested by a recognized tribe, the state must negotiate a governing compact in good faith. Furthermore, unless otherwise waived, each individual tribe retains favored nation status, meaning they have the right to reopen compacts and negotiate the same terms and conditions granted any other tribe in the state.

The existing tribal compacts grant each tribe an allocation of 675 slot machines each, and with one exception (we’ll get to that later) a maximum of two casinos. As has been widely reported the proposed Spokane compact authorizes the tribe to operate up to 4,700 slot machines at as many as five locations. This would appear to set the stage for a massive expansion of tribal gaming as the other tribes reopened their compacts to demand the same deal: more casinos, more slots, more gambling.

Well… not exactly.

While each tribe is allocated the right to own 675 slot machines, some are authorized to operate as many as 2000 at a single facility using machines leased from smaller tribes that do not operate casinos of their own. In fact the number of casinos and machines authorized in the Spokane compact is actually quite similar to the terms of the compact granted the Colville tribe, which is authorized to operate 4,800 machines at as many as six locations.

So why can’t the other tribes use their favored nation status to demand a similar number of casinos and authorized slot machines? Because they can’t meet the same conditions.

Both the Spokanes and the Colvilles have sprawling reservations, and their compacts stipulate that their casinos be located at least twenty-five miles apart. Fitzsimmons implied that no other tribe can meet that stipulation, and thus no other tribe can demand the same deal. (Though looking at the map, I wonder about the Yakimas.)

Where the Spokane compact does depart from previous compacts is the fact that it grants an allocation of 900 slot machines, not 675. The 27 other recognized tribes can reopen their compacts to obtain the same 900 machine allocation, potentially increasing the total number of tribal slot machines statewide by about a third, from 18,225 to 25,200. In fact, that’s the whole point.

See, most of the existing allocation is already spoken for, so by coming to the table late, the Spokanes would otherwise be unable to lease additional slot machines to fill their casinos. They already operate about 500 Las Vegas style slots (illegally), but there is little the state can do to remove them, so there would be no incentive for the Spokanes to agree to a compact that doesn’t give them the opportunity to expand their operations. It’s not the extra 225-machine allocation that makes the deal work for the Spokanes, its the thousands of additional machines that will now be available for them to lease.

In addition to the increased allocation, the Spokanes have negotiated a number of other new goodies into their compact. Currently, slot machines are limited to a maximum $5 bet, but the Spokanes would be allowed to raise this betting limit to $20 on as many as 15-percent of their machines. Existing compacts require that players use coupons or cards to initiate play, but the Spokane compact for the first time permits using US coins and currency. And finally, the Spokanes have negotiated higher betting limits (essentially, none) at five gaming tables in one facility during a specified time period of up to 120 days each year.

Like the higher 900-machine allocation, the other tribes would have the right to reopen their compacts to obtain the same terms.

But… only if they agree to the same conditions. Like other compacts the Spokanes have agreed to pay 2-percent of net receipts into a local mitigation fund, and to contribute another 1-percent to charity. But the Spokanes have also agreed to contribute 0.13-percent to problem gambling treatment and prevention programs (the same contribution now required of commercial card rooms,) and have the option of either contributing an additional 0.13-percent to smoking cessation programs or make all of its facilities smoke free.

So… what does all this mean?

When it comes to the number of facilities and authorized machines, the Spokanes demanded the same sort of deal negotiated by the Colvilles. Given the Spokanes’ favored nation status, the state really couldn’t do anything about that. But this authorization would be totally worthless to the Spokanes without a larger universe of slot machines from which to lease, so while nothing requires the state to bump up the allocation from 675 to 900, there’s a certain irrefutable logic to doing so.

And you can be sure that the 27 other tribes will most definitely reopen their compacts to obtain the higher allocation, even if it means agreeing to the new problem gambling and smoking cessation contributions. Slot machines are the lifeblood of the gambling industry, accounting for the overwhelming majority of casino profits. This is money in the bank.

What the state gets from this is an end to the Spokanes’ illegal operations, relatively uniform compact terms across all 28 tribes — and assuming all the tribes seek the same deal — about $2.6 million a year in additional funding for problem gambling treatment and prevention programs.

Is it worth it?

I’d hate to think that the only way to secure adequate problem gambling contributions is to give the tribes something in return. A handful of tribes already make voluntary contributions, and one would have hoped that all the tribes would have been willing to do their part to mitigate a problem gambling epidemic that is largely one of their own making. Slot machines are by far the most addictive gambling activity — they are scientifically designed to create compulsion — and it bothers me to know that desperately needed problem gambling treatment funds have been negotiated at the expense of a one-third increase in the number of tribal slot machines statewide. But I can’t for the life of me see why the Spokanes would agree to a compact that didn’t increase the number of slot machines available for lease, so at the very least I’m grateful that the state insisted on including the problem gambling contribution as a precondition.

As for the cash-fed machines and higher betting limits, well, it may seem like a quibble, but that’s a departure from existing compacts that I simply cannot support.

Personally, I’d stick with the status quo and reject the compact. Yes, the Spokanes would continue to operate about 500 Las Vegas style slot machines, but without a legal compact they’ll never secure the financing necessary to expand their current operations. Given this context, I can’t help but think that the state has the leverage to cut a better deal.

Still, the deal is not nearly as bad as initial press reports led me to believe, and thus I doubt the political consequences will be as dire as I had at first predicted.

From the Give ‘Em Enough Rope and They’ll Hang Themselves Department, Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform Association eloquently makes the conservative argument against public financing of elections:

The Jan. 24 letter to the editor from Nick Nyhart and Chellie Pingree (“Full public funding of elections proven to work in states, cities,”), respective presidents of Public Campaign and Common Cause, lament the lack of public financing for all American political campaigns: “A democracy should be about all of us and not just about those who can write huge checks.”

But if Nyhart and Pingree had their way, black helicopter conspiracy theorists off their meds, the dysfunctionally unemployed, irresponsible young men and women who have multiple babies out-of-wedlock, repeat felons and various other burdens to society without means might have as much to say about our nation’s political leadership and direction as folks who soberly get up every morning, lovingly raise their children, productively hold jobs, responsibly pay taxes, and occasionally write checks, huge or otherwise, to the political campaigns of their choosing.

[…] There’s a lot to be said […] for having most of our big political decisions influenced in greater measure by those who have succeeded in life and thus have a better sense of what it’ll take for our nation to succeed in the future.

Well… um… you gotta respect his honesty.

Conservatives like to accuse liberals of being elitist, but as we continue to debate Governor Gregoire’s proposal to publicly finance state Supreme Court races, remember that at least some of the opposition stems from the concern that us average folk simply aren’t as qualified to participate in the democratic process as the wealthy. Uh-huh.

The HA community is just incredible. With 10 hours remaining on HA’s first “Pledge Week”, 106 readers have contributed $4,043.91, blowing past my $3,500 target. That’s a couple mortgage payments and then some, and certainly takes a bit of the edge off my short term financial situation. Thank you all for giving so… well… liberally.

But as much as I can use the money, the very fact that so many of you have been so generous is at least as gratifying as the cash itself. Opening your wallets not only tells me that you appreciate my work, but that you recognize the important role us bloggers play in transforming both the media and political landscapes. It is tremendously reassuring to know that I am not the only one who believes that we are in the midst of creating a more vibrant, informed and democratic democracy.

I look forward to working with all of you over the coming year, and promise to do the best I can to make your investment in me pay dividends far into the future.

Oh… and if you haven’t yet contributed to the pledge drive, it’s never too late. Your financial support is always appreciated, and will never be spent frivolously.

It’s Pledge Week at HA.
Please give liberally.

From the What-The-Fuck? Department:

Raw cougar meat eaten by a deer hunter is the apparent source of Washington state’s first case of trichinosis since 2001, a health official says.

The hunter was hospitalized for a time after eating the uncooked meat in October but has since recovered, Klickitat County Health Director Kevin Barry told the Yakima Herald-Republic.

Dollars to doughnuts the raw meat this tragically macho hunter ate was the cougar’s heart. What a douchebag.

Anyway, whatever the circumstances, here’s a suggestion for the next time this guy bags a cougar:

COUGAR STEAKS

Serves: 2

1 pound cougar steak
Marinade
Flour
3 Tbsp. cooking oil
1 teaspoon bacon fat

Marinate steaks for 2-3 hours in your favorite meat marinate. Dry steaks and flour both sides of meat. Fry in skillet with oil and bacon fat over medium heat until cooked.

Yum.

96 readers have contributed $3,450 to HA’s pledge drive… just $50 shy of my $3,500 target with one day remaining. At this point I’m pretty sure we’re going to reach our goal.

I thank you all for your incredible generosity.

It’s Pledge Week at HA.
Please give liberally.

UPDATE:
Target reached! I’ll post a full accounting later today, but in the mean time, please feel free to take me well past my goal. Thanks!

I’ll be at tonight’s Drinking Liberally at the Montlake Ale House, and I’ll be staying late because I have no radio show to go home to. If you are going to DL, read my question and think about it, and then we’ll argue about it tonight.

Question: Is universal healthcare the same as single-payer healthcare to you? That is, do those two mean the same things to you? Also, would you accept a healthcare compromise that used “conservative” means (ie, the free market, etc) to reach “liberal” ends (affordable, good quality healthcare for every American)?

Think about it, and I’ll see you tonight @ 8pm.

***UPDATE***

Good answers, everybody! Although the turnout was a bit low at tonight’s DL, there were some good answers to the question. Even the right-wing trolls got in on the act. I especially like this answer:

And by the way… nobody is entitled to anything in this world. Nothing. Including health care.

If you want good health care, get off your ass and earn it. It really is that fucking simple…

Unfortunately, lots of the folks without insurance are full time workers, not the “lazy poor”:

Today over 70 percent of the 41 million uninsured Americans come from families where there is at least one full-time worker.

But good try, folks!

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

I’m filling in for Frank Shiers on 710-KIRO tonight from 9PM to 1AM, so I’ll just be stopping by the Ale House on my way to the studio, but I’ll be with you in spirit if not in spirits.

Not in Seattle? The Tri-Cities chapter of Drinking Liberally will be celebrating its one-year aniversary tonight, and a full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

The Spokesman Review’s Rich Roesler reports that Gov. Chris Gregoire is likely to sign a proposed gaming compact with the Spokane tribe that could lead to a massive expansion of gambling in Washington state.

“I’m delighted they finally did come to the table,” said Gregoire, who as attorney general once sued the tribe for offering gambling without a state compact. “They have stayed the course and negotiated in good faith.”

She spoke at her weekly news conference with reporters at the capitol.

Asked if she would sign the compact as it is now, Gregoire responded “I haven’t thoroughly reviewed it, every jot and tittle of it, but the parameters that I’ve heard about, yes I would.”

I’m not so sure what the governor is delighted about. The proposed compact ups the ante for tribal gaming, giving the Spokanes 4,700 cash-fed slot machines and high-stakes betting. Under federal law the other tribes have the right to reopen their compacts to demand equal terms, and if history is any guide, they will.

The compact is great for the Spokanes but it’s a bad deal for Washington state, which is already in the midst of a gambling epidemic. And my sense is that this compact is bad politics for Gov. Gregoire and her fellow Democrats. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected Tim Eyman’s I-892, which would have legalized slot machines statewide. (Spokane County voters rejected the measure by an even larger margin.) And Republicans are poised to make hay with the issue.

Speaking of which, I’ll be filling in for Frank Shiers tonight on 710-KIRO from 9PM to 1AM, and Rep. Bruce Chandler (R-Granger), the ranking Republican on the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee will be joining me at 9:05 to discuss the proposed Spokane compact. Um… he’s opposed.

86 readers have contributed over $2,900 to HA’s pledge drive, leaving us $600 shy of our $3,500 goal with only two days remaining. After a quick start, it now looks like we might come down to the wire.

Of course, I wouldn’t be asking for your financial support if I didn’t need the money, but the very fact that so many of you are willing to put up your hard earned cash to help me continue my work at HA is at least as gratifying as the money itself. If you are a regular reader, even a small donation is appreciated, so please help me reach my goal.

Thanks.

It’s Pledge Week at HA.
Please give liberally.

While I was eulogizing a horse (sorta) Joel Connelly was remembering Rev. Robert Drinan, the congressman who introduced the first House impeachment resolution against President Richard Nixon back in 1973.

The Rev. Robert Drinan, 86, a Jesuit priest, spent virtually his entire adult life teaching law at Boston College and Georgetown University, and making law for 10 years as a congressman from Massachusetts.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Drinan introduced a 1973 resolution to impeach Nixon based on the secret (and illegal) bombing of Cambodia. The panel ultimately picked broader grounds, chiefly abuse of power, to vote overwhelmingly in the summer of 1974 to impeach the 37th president.

Nixon resigned soon after the Judiciary Committee votes. He quit after the Supreme Court-ordered release of a “smoking gun” showing the president conspiring to conceal origins of the Watergate break-in.

Republican Senate leaders, chiefly Sens. Hugh Scott and Barry Goldwater, told Nixon that he could count on no more than 15-20 Senate votes against conviction and removal from office.

The “mad monk,” as Drinan called himself, served five terms in the House, retiring in 1981 after an order from the Vatican forbade priests from serving in elective office.

In remembering Drinan’s service to our nation it is also important to remember that Nixon’s resignation was not simply a matter of Watergate. It was the bombing of Cambodia without congressional authorization that started the ball rolling. President Bush should keep that in mind as he continues his efforts to provoke a confrontation with Iran.

I suppose it is not surprising that the death of a horse is front page news when the horse in question is Barbaro, the 2006 Kentucky Derby winner who only a few weeks later at the Preakness suffered a catastrophic leg injury on national television. Horses are often immediately euthanized at the race track after suffering injuries like that, but Barbaro was only reluctantly put down today, and only after months of extraordinary veterinary care and multiple setbacks.

But more extraordinary than the efforts to save Barbaro — his owners are Rockefeller heirs after all, and his sperm was worth millions — was the outpouring of support from thousands of people, directed towards, well… a horse.

Almost immediately, fruit baskets filled with green apples and carrots, elaborate flower arrangements and get-well cards arrived by the truckload at the veterinary hospital. Online message boards were swamped with Barbaro news, and became a virtual waiting room.

I suppose the crusty, cynical response would be to berate the American people for lavishing so much love and affection on a freakishly talented $30 million race horse, at the same time our nation is busy spending its blood and treasure on a brutal, dehumanizing war in Iraq. During the months of Barbaro’s failed rehabilitation, how many Iraqi civilians and US soldiers lost their lives or limbs? How many children lost their parents? How many parents lost a son or a daughter?

For that matter, how many children slowly starved to death in Darfur while distraught animal lovers sent fruit baskets to a horse?

Yup, that would be the cynical response. And it is so overwhelmingly tempting to go there.

But I see another side to this seemingly misprioritized compassion, and while it may not paint our species in the most flattering light, it does portray a human quirk that I find oddly endearing. I’m talking of course about our innate ability to distract ourselves from the horrors of everyday life, and to find beauty in a world filled with ugliness… much of our own making.

It’s almost charming.

In The Leviathan Thomas Hobbes famously describes the condition of war as one of “every man against every man,” a condition in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” This is the condition in which our species surely evolved, a harsh existence in which our ancestors found themselves not only in dire competition with other species, but with each other. This the condition that is so deeply ingrained in our species that one is tempted to define humanity by the inhumanity we wreak on our fellow man.

And yet us humans are equally capable of incredible displays of empathy and compassion. We can be filled with a love so immense and ungainly that following our heart is like squeezing a water balloon: it either uncontrollably oozes out between our fingers in every direction — or suddenly and irreversibly bursts.

We are an odd species, that can love animals and eat them at the same time. Hypocritical? Sure. But it also means that when it comes to us humans, anything is possible.

While thousands of Americans weep at the news of Barbaro’s death, countless Iraqis will die unnoticed from a war of our own making. But rather than view this cynically, I choose to view it as a sign of our humanity, and as a sign of hope. For if we can grieve for horse, surely we can learn to grieve for our fellow man.