HorsesAss.Org

Earlier today you may have seen the post by Rep. Adam Smith, in which he explains his reasoning for opposing escalation in Iraq:

After the meeting I considered the President’s argument and reviewed the available information, including the Iraq Study Group report. In the end, even though I gave the President’s argument due consideration, I don’t find it persuasive. A troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

But the big question is whether or not Rep. Smith is willing to use Congress’ constitutional power of the purse to limit the President’s ability to send additional troops to Iraq. [See the update below]

I don’t want to put the troops in a political fight between Congress and the President, and Congress should carefully consider the consequences of any attempts to block funds for a surge. We cannot put our forces in Iraq at greater risk. But a troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

But Congressman, it is the President who has put the troops in this fight between himself and Congress! Let’s be clear: Democrats should fund the troops who are currently engaged, but not a single soldier more. Let’s draw a line in the sand. I think the working class folks of the 9th District would appreciate a congressman who sticks up (and always has, I might add) for the grunts who could be shipped out in a “surge.” Let’s make sure Rep. Adam Smith knows we’ve got his back on this!

Speaking of ‘speaking out,’ I’m seeing a trend starting to work its way around the blogosphere. Lefties are flying off the handle at perceived slights and sins of omission. Like this:

Our Senators have been remarkably quiet about Iraq for a long time. Until lately, Iraq wasn’t even on Patty Murray’s website. They’re doing better lately, but I was disappointed that they had no thoughts about the most important issue facing the country.
Did I miss something? I thought the Republicans were supposed to come up with right wing ideas, and Democrats were supposed to come up with left wing ideas. Instead, Murray and Cantwell are letting Bush and Cheney do all the thinking (no, I can’t read that with a straight face either). They are content to respond.

I’m getting worn out with folks runnin’ off half-cocked, with goofy ideas about exactly what senators and congressfolk ought to say and when they ought to say it. Senators Murray and Cantwell have some power to wield. Attention Democrats!! We’ve got power now!! This means it doesn’t matter what they say so much as what they do. As Kos says, just because Murray and Cantwell aren’t angrily denoucing Bush’s plan before he releases it doesn’t mean they’re not ready for a fight.

And in this fight, even the soldiers are with us.

UPDATE:

Rep. Adam Smith was on KUOW today and said it was “appropriate to place limits” on the President regarding the increase of troop levels. He’s open to the idea, but is concerned that it might not be possible. He wants to make sure such a move doesn’t hurt the troops, which is his first concern (as it should be).

Um… I was listening to President Bush’s speech this evening, and I’m not exactly sure that this is what the Iraq Study Group meant when they recommended that the US “actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.”

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

So… as long as we’re escalating the war in Iraq, I guess the only question regarding Iran and Syria is, which one is Cambodia and which one is Laos?

UPDATE:
Great minds think alike. The General has uncovered Our Leader’s visual aid:

Rep. Adam Smith / Guest post:

Yesterday several of my colleagues and I met with President Bush and senior members of the Administration to discuss his plans for a “troop surge”. The meeting included the Vice President, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and Karl Rove. Other members of Congress present included Representatives Skelton, Harman, Edwards, Reyes, Lantos, Dicks, and Berman.

I went to the meeting highly skeptical that escalating our troop presence in Iraq by approximately 20,000 personnel is the right answer in Iraq. I hoped to learn more about the administration’s thinking and to ask tough questions about his rationale. The President and his advisors laid out a plan to use a troop surge to support an Iraqi-led effort to “clear and hold” areas of Baghdad to help restore credibility for the Iraq government. They are obviously committed to their plan, but it was clear that they understand the hole they are in. There was no swagger – but it remains to be seen if they truly listen to Congress and to the American people who have deep and justified concerns about such an escalation.

After the meeting I considered the President’s argument and reviewed the available information, including the Iraq Study Group report. In the end, even though I gave the President’s argument due consideration, I don’t find it persuasive. A troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

I’m concerned that the President continues to view this as a military problem, not a political problem. We have tried troop increases in Baghdad before with very limited results. We need to see from the Administration a real commitment to a broader diplomatic and political effort if we are to have any sense of minimal stability in Iraq. So far, the Administration has talked about such efforts, but not backed them up with resources and action. We simply cannot afford more of the same.

We also have to keep in mind that the global war on terror is exactly that: global. How does our commitment in Iraq affect our ability to prosecute the wider war? As I said yesterday in an interview, the recent air strikes against al-Qaeda targets in Somalia are a reminder that Iraq does not constitute the entire war on terror, and we have to remember that the battle in Iraq does not necessarily determine success or failure in the broader struggle.

In the weeks ahead, I’ll have the opportunity to participate in Armed Services Committee hearings, especially in the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities (which I will chair) to more fully examine the President’s plan.

I don’t want to put the troops in a political fight between Congress and the President, and Congress should carefully consider the consequences of any attempts to block funds for a surge. We cannot put our forces in Iraq at greater risk. But a troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.

Rep. Adam Smith
[Rep. Smith is a Democrat, representing Washington’s 9th Congressional District]

Apparently, Seattle was only fourth last year nationwide in bank robberies.

With 74 bank robberies in 2006, Seattle ranked fourth in the nation behind only Los Angeles (357), Boston (343) and Philadelphia (292), said FBI spokeswoman Robbie Burroughs.

Statewide, FBI agents and police responded to 272 bank robberies last year, compared with 221 in 2005, Burroughs said.

Washington has historically had among the highest number of bank robberies. The state recorded 357 robberies in 1998, an all-time high. However, the numbers have declined in recent years.

FBI Special Agent Larry Carr blames our high number of bank robberies on Seattle’s high level of homelessness.

Of all of the robberies investigated last year, Carr said he can’t think of any suspect who had a permanent address.

“If they’re not homeless, they’re transient. They’re living in a hotel room based upon the proceeds of their bank robbery,”

In case your wondering, here are some WA bank robbery fun facts:

• 93 percent of bank robbers are men.
• Most bank robberies are nonviolent. Only four assaults occurred in 272 robberies.
• The bank most likely to be hit? Bank of America.
• Average take statewide? $3,622
• Average take Seattle? $2,004
• Average take Spokane? $6,026

Hmm. I’ve been robbing banks in the wrong city.

Due to an equipment failure, the Montlake Ale House is closed tonight, so we’re moving the gathering to Elysian Fields, down by Qwest Field.

I know it’s a bit of a hike, but they serve good beer and good food. And it’s awfully damn big, and usually pretty empty when there isn’t a game going on.

We’ll be back at the Montlake Ale House next week.

I have a small retirement account left over from the days when I actually earned a living. Most of it is in a mutual fund, but I do own one stock directly. And that stock just went up 8.3 percent today.

Here’s why.

Oh. My. God.

It’s gadgets like this that make me wish I could just sell my soul to the highest bidder.

Kudos to Rep. Sherry Appleton (D-Poulsbo) for introducing a bill, HB 1087, that would prohibit paying signature gatherers on a per-signature basis.

     NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that the preservation of the integrity of the initiative and referendum process is of utmost importance to the citizens of Washington. In Prete v. Bradbury, the court of appeals for the ninth circuit concluded that an Oregon law banning payment of electoral petition signature gatherers on a per-signature basis is not per se unconstitutional. Courts of appeals for the second and eighth circuits have upheld laws banning payment per-signature in New York and North Dakota as well.
     The legislature finds that paying workers based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition increases the possibility of fraud in the signature gathering process. This practice may encourage the signature gatherer to misrepresent a ballot measure, to apply undue pressure on a person to sign a petition that the person is not qualified to sign, to encourage signing even if the person has previously signed, or to invite forgery. To protect the process from fraudulent practices, compensation per-signature needs to be addressed in Washington.

     NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 29A.84 RCW to read as follows:
     A person who pays or receives consideration based on the number of signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable to the same extent as a misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.

My buddy Tim Eyman told David Postman that the measure is unconstitutional, and I guess Eyman should know, since he’s managed to pen and pass four unconstitutional measures himself. Still, considering the fact that a similar Oregon law has already passed constitutional muster, Tim shouldn’t be so cocky.

And speaking of unconstitutional initiatives, Eyman himself filed a new one yesterday, requiring a two-thirds vote for the legislature to approve any tax increase. Of course, the state constitution specifies a simple majority, so what’s the point? Yawn.

[UPDATE!!! Just got word that the Montlake Alehouse is closed tonight due to equipment failure.

Tonight’s Seattle DL has been moved to Elysian Fields, down by Qwest Field. Why there? Good beer, and plenty of room.]

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

I know the local news today is probably going to be dominated by our impending climatic doom (ie, it might snow) but if the forecast holds up we should be getting our usual rain until well past last call. So I fully expect the usual crowd.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

NOTE:
The inaugural meeting of the Mercer Island chapter of DL will be held tomorrow, Jan 10, 6:30PM at the Islander Pub, 7440 SE 27th Street, Mercer Island. I know the DL calendar says they meet at the Roanoke Tavern, and I understand they plan to meet there in the future, but at least for this week it’s at the Islander.

I don’t really care who came up with the idea first, Danny or Dan. (In fact, I’ve been quietly thinking along the same lines myself in recent weeks.) The point is, as long as we’re going to have to live without the Viaduct for a number of years regardless of the replacement option, why not just live without it and see how it goes?

Transportation planners predict massive gridlock if the Viaduct disappears, but… well… transportation planners have been wrong before. One thing we’ve learned from our nation’s freeway construction binge is “build it, and they will come.” And one thing we’ve learned from the few experiments in freeway removal is “tear it down, and people will find some other way to get the hell where their going.”

Okay, that second catch phrase isn’t all that catchy. But for the most part it’s true.

I’ve always found it odd, the argument that Highway 99 is a vital north-south freeway that we simply cannot do without, when in fact the vast majority of 99 runs at-grade, traffic lights and all. And ironically, my own yearlong personal experience routinely heading north on 99 from South Seattle to Ballard during afternoon rush hour found that the double-decker Viaduct was the only portion of 99 that was absolutely guaranteed to be mired in stop-and-go traffic.

How could a surface street option possibly be any worse?

So yeah, tear down the Viaduct, try the “surface plus transit” alternative, and let’s see if it works. And if it doesn’t, well… we can always blame Danny and Dan.

UPDATE:
David Sucher points out that he argued for this approach way back in May. So there you have it… two Dans and two Daves all think it’s a good idea. What’s there to lose?

UPDATE, UPDATE:
One sign that an idea is catching on is when everybody starts demanding credit for it.

Can someone explain to me why the Mayor of Seattle is proposing gun control legislation that would have done nothing to prevent the recent incidences of gun violence? I’m no gun nut, and I’m for laws that will do some good, and more importantly, I’m in favor of enforcing current gun laws. The difference between an “assault weapon” and a regular weapon can be nothing less than a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, and a high capacity magazine. I’ve shot an assault weapon; they’re really, really fun to shoot. I don’t understand why my liberal friends want to defend the Bill of Rights, but ignore the second item on the list.

GM’s new hybrid is ugly as sin. Detroit is going to continue to get its ass kicked by Toyota if they build cars like that.

Heheheh… ECB knocks down bullshit from The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza. Expect more to underestimate Pelosi in the coming months.

Jimmy, please please please don’t die!

Senate Democrats are going in for the kill in ’08.

I don’t see Rep. Dave Reichert handling minority status all that well.

Four. Years. Old.

I’d like to say I did my part as well.

From what I remember about this guy, I don’t think he’s going places. I guess we now know it was always about politics.

Well, so much for “fair and balanced” journalism. The Seattle Times objectively reports on Gov. Christine Gregoire’s budget proposal:

Shortly after the November election, when it was clear Democrats would hold overwhelming majorities in the Legislature, Gov. Christine Gregoire vowed to keep lawmakers on a “fiscally prudent” path and to impose discipline if needed.

Now, some people hope legislators can restrain the governor from embarking on a $4 billion spending spree.

There is absolutely nothing objective about this lede. Perhaps it was poorly phrased, but whatever the intent, the Times’ mischaracterization of Gov. Gregoire’s budget as a “spending spree” will be understood by most readers as a statement of fact. Furthermore, by presenting the Governor’s proposed budget in opposition to her previous vow to be “fiscally prudent,” the Times clearly implies that she is not.

This is the Republican frame, and the Times reporters have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The lede is also entirely consistent with the equally leading headline: “Governor’s big spending plan: Can we afford it?” The spending plan? Big. Can we afford it? Well, if you have to ask the price….

Don’t bother reading beyond the headline and the first couple paragraphs (and understand that most readers won’t,) the very language of the Times’ reporting serves to reinforce a frame that has been decades in the making. And as George Lakoff famously observes, if the facts don’t fit the frame, most people discard the facts and keep the frame.

As I have insisted many times before, there is a legitimate debate to be had over the proper size and scope of government — but “reporting” like this makes such a debate impossible. This article is based on an assumption — that projected budget deficits are due to profligate government spending — an assumption that if left unchallenged and unrefuted virtually assures the status quo: a government that continues to fall further and further behind its obligations.

The article also presents a faulty and simplistic methodology for measuring government growth. Nobody is arguing that the state government isn’t growing larger in terms of total employees or dollars spent. But these measurements are meaningless when presented outside the context of growth in the overall state economy. Indeed, despite its 12.2 percent growth, Gov. Gregoire’s biennial budget actually represents a smaller percentage of our state economy than any of the six biennial budgets that precede it.

Think about it. If state spending were to double over the next decade, but the state economy were to grow at twice that rate, then the government would effectively shrink in half when measured as a percentage of the overall economy. And since the metric that most closely tracks growth in demand for government services is growth in personal income, this smaller government (relative to the overall economy) would grow increasingly incapable of meeting the demands placed upon it.

Thus, if you are a proponent of smaller government, do nothing, for without substantial tax restructuring a smaller government is exactly what we are going to get. This is because our current tax system is structurally incapable of growing tax revenues at a pace equal to growth in the overall economy, because we tax a smaller and smaller portion of our economy every passing year.

That is a fact.

But you won’t read this fact in the newspaper. That’s because this fact is wonky. It’s complicated. It’s difficult to understand and explain.

And it doesn’t fit the frame.

Rossi appeared on Up Front with Robert Mak today. He was asked about the Viaduct, and whether it ought to be replaced with a tunnel of another viaduct. He said (and I’m paraphrasing):

That’s for the engineers to decide.

Really? It’s up to them?

Lordy!

First the Seahawks game goes down to the wire. Then the Eagles game goes down to the wire. That’s why I’ll be talking football on “The David Goldstein Show” tonight from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. Subject to change, here are the topics for tonight’s show:

7PM: Why do we make ourselves so crazy about sports? I’m telling you, I’m drained. I need to just sit back with a cheesesteak and a couple of Rolling Rocks. Why? Why should I care so much about a silly game played by multimillionaires employed by a billionaire in a city I haven’t lived in for twenty years?

8PM: Do hate talkers have more rights than liberal bloggers? Blogger Mr. Spocko of Spocko’s Brain has been chronicling the hate talkers on Bay Area radio station KSFO, posting offensive clips to his website. The result, KSFO owner ABC Radio Networks (AKA Disney) threatens legal action and Spocko’s ISP pulls the plug, shutting down his blog. Mr. Spocko joins us to answer the question: “Whatever happened to the Fair Use Doctrine, and doesn’t it apply to bloggers?” Here’s a sample of KSFO’s usual fare:

9PM: When is a spending spree not a spending spree? When we’re talking about the state budget.

WA State Budget & Policy Center analysis

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

One of the Democrats’ first moves Friday after taking control of the US House was to pass a package of rules and ethics reforms aimed at addressing political corruption and reigning in our massive federal deficit. All six Democratic members of Washington’s delegation voted for the rule changes. All three WA Republicans voted against them.

And one of the highest profile changes was to re-adopt a stringent “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) budget rule that requires lawmakers to offset any new spending on entitlements, or any new tax cuts. Such a rule was in place during much of the 1990’s, during a time when President Clinton led the nation from record deficits to record surpluses, and actually started paying off the national debt. Deficits later exploded and the national debt mushroomed to $8.6 trillion under President Bush after Republicans suspended PAYGO.

Rep. Dave Reichert, who campaigns as a “fiscal conservative,” vehemently opposes PAYGO:

“I will vote against it because it raises taxes,” Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said in a telephone interview. “The easiest fix is always to raise taxes.”

Uh-huh. If you ask me, the politically easy move has always been to cut taxes, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. Republicans are concerned that the new rule will make it harder to renew Bush’s tax cuts, most of which expire in 2010… and most of which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Given the choice between true fiscal conservatism and paying back the GOP’s corporatist patrons, Reichert has clearly chosen the latter. And who pays for this choice? Rep. Brian Baird explains:

“We want to get the budget under control and we need to look at entitlements and revenue,” he said. “Does Dave Reichert really want to sit down with my 22-month-old boys or his grandkids and tell them they owe $8.6 billion?”

Of course, that’s what it comes down to — somebody’s got to pay for this generation’s deficit spending, and if it’s up to Reichert and the Republicans, the cost is going to fall on the shoulders of the next generation.

We’re not talking about discretionary spending. We’re not talking about investments in infrastructure or education or R&D. We’re not talking about national defense. We’re not even talking about the automatic cost-of-living increases mandated in programs like Medicare and Social Security.

PAYGO only applies to new entitlement spending (like when Medicare’s prescription drug program was implemented) and new tax cuts. Under PAYGO any new tax cut or entitlement would have to be offset by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. It’s Balanced Budgeting 101. You know… common sense.

Yet Reichert apparently thinks we can still balance the budget using, you know… magic.

“But the way to reduce the deficit is to rein in federal spending and cut taxes, which has proven to increase revenues,” Reichert said.

Yeah, just like it was proven under Ronald Reagan and George Bush II — the two administrations that oversaw the largest expansions in the national debt in US history. That’s supply-side economics, or as Bush I famously called it during his 1980 presidential campaign, “Voodoo Economics.”

Reichert claims to be a moderate. He claims to be fiscally responsible. But when push comes to shove he unblinkingly repeats the Republican mantra and votes to protect tax cuts at all costs.

Hmm. I’d love to see where his buddies on the Seattle Times editorial board fall on PAYGO?

When Gov. Chris Gregoire unveiled her proposed two-year state budget a couple weeks back, the Seattle Times editorial board echoed the criticism of state Republicans, calling it “too high” and “unsustainable.” Oh, don’t get them wrong — the Times liked most of the spending priorities in Gov. Gregoire’s new budget — they just don’t want to pay for them:

Much of this has our support. But a 12.2-percent increase in spending compared with a 7.7 percent expected growth in revenues is too much. It is unsustainable on its face.

My immediate response was to point out that the projected budget shortfall was not due to out out-of-control spending but rather an antiquated tax system that is not only the most regressive in the nation, but is structurally incapable of producing revenue growth adequate to meet the demands of our state’s growing economy. I argued that Washington is not a high tax state, and that measured as a percentage of personal income, state and local taxes have steadily decreased since I moved here in 1992.

Well, now I have some current statistics to back me up, and it turns out that far from a dramatic expansion, state government under Gov. Gregoire’s proposed budget is actually shrinking as percentage of the state economy.

A summary analysis by the Washington State Budget & Policy Center describes Gov. Gregoire’s budget as “a modest step towards the kind of state Washingtonians want to live in,” and clearly shows that general fund spending under Gregoire is merely following the same trend established during the 1990s.

The Times would have you believe that it is Gov. Gregoire’s proposed 12.2-percent spending increase that is the anomaly, but in fact it was actually the slower spending growth during the national recession and tepid recovery that fell below historical growth levels. Gov. Gregoire’s budget merely returns 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 the 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. A spending increase, even when accompanied by an increase in marginal tax rates, does not increase the burden on individual taxpayers if it results in a corresponding increase in personal income.

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 growing, when by the most meaningful measure — the government’s total share of our state’s economic resources — even Gov. Gregoire’s proposed 12.2 percent increase represents a decline from historic trends.

So let’s have an honest debate.