HorsesAss.Org

Rep. Dave Reichert has spent $526,000 sending out 1.5 million pieces of franked mail… that’s 20 percent of his entire office budget. Up Front with Robert Mak has details, and kind of sticks it to Reichert. (I especially like the part where Reichert looks over his shoulders at an off camera aide when he can’t answer a question.) Anyway, watch the video.

The Seattle Times op/ed page (of all places) neatly highlights American Liberalism at work, lauding two local government proposals for increased disaster preparedness. [“Levees to lahar, disaster preparation.”]

King County Executive Ron Sims has proposed a new countywide flood-control district that would raise about $335 million ($15 to $30 a year on a $300,000 home) to pay for repairs and extensions to the county’s many levees. Meanwhile, the small town of Orting, which sits on lahar debris in the shadow of Mount Rainier, is proposing a new bridge across the Carbon River at a cost of as much as $12 million, to speed evacuation in the inevitable event of another major mudslide.

As the Times succinctly points out:

We live in a region with the potential of natural disasters that can be exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure. It makes sense to invest in safeguards now instead of paying for widespread destruction later. New Orleans taught us that.

We hear a lot from the right about the sanctity of the free market and the inherent inefficiencies of government, but there are some necessary public investments like education and safety that are simply outside the realm of the free market. No private corporation could make a reasonable return on adequately educating the children of the poor. No financial calculus could justify the private investment of $12 million in saving several hundred school children from a lahar that may be centuries away.

And yet most of us recognize that these are investments that must be made… that spending tax dollars protecting homes and businesses from inevitable floods both saves lives and prevents huge losses to our economy as a whole. Most of us recognize that this is a proper role for government, and thus most of us implicitly accept the basic ideological tenets of modern American Liberalism.

There is certainly a legitimate debate to be had over the proper size and scope of government, but while neo-cons and theo-cons have spent the better part of the past three decades denigrating the word “liberal” and vilifying those who would take its label, all but the most wacked-out, extremist nutjobs (that’s you, Grover Nordquist) accept that government regulation and public investment plays a necessary role in our modern democracy and economy. Indeed, when Alaska Senator Ted Stevens publicly argues the case for his infamous “bridge to nowhere” he appeals to the core principles of Liberalism, however cynically.

Liberalism was our nation’s overwhelmingly dominant political philosophy throughout the period in which America grew into the greatest economic, military and political power in the history of the world. It was Liberalism that guided us out of the Great Depression and through World War II, the Cold War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was Liberalism that desegregated the South, irrigated the desert, and (for better or for worse) built the interstate highway system.

No ideology has all the answers and all can be pushed absurdly to the extreme, so sure, I recognize the need for there to be a balance between our nation’s liberal and conservative impulses. Yet even in the face of a proto-fascist administration that seeks in the name of God and national security to break the shackles of our Constitution by extending its tentacles into every aspect of our private lives, I remain a steadfast believer in the power of an activist, principled government to better the lives of all its citizens.

That is why despite the inherent inadequacy of political labels, I continue to proudly identify myself as a “liberal.”

Just thought you might want to know.

[UPDATE: Sen. Cantwell to call in at 8:07PM.]

It’s a jam-packed lineup tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”– Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM — lots to talk about and lots of people to talk with.

7PM: Why does President Bush hate working Americans? Kathy Casavante of the AFL-CIO’s Voice@Work Campaign will join me to explain administration efforts to redefine the word “supervisor” so as to take away the right to organize from millions of workers. Later on in the hour we’ll be joined by nurses from Virginia Mason Medical Centers, whose proposal to reclassify all 600 registered nurses as supervisors is nothing more than a naked attempt to bust the local and state nursing union.

8PM: Democratic challenger and putative anti-war candidate Mark Wilson just dropped out of the race, endorsed Sen. Maria Cantwell, and announced his intention to campaign full time on her behalf. I’ll talk with Sen. Maria Cantwell at the top of the hour, and then Mark join me to take your calls and answer the question: What changed his mind?

9PM: You say you want a progressive revolution? Progressive Majority Executive Director Gloria Totten joins me to tell us what her organization is doing to turn our nation around from the ground up, by training and supporting local progressive candidates in local races. And later on I’ll ask the question if, in addition to all the grassroots, hard-work, infrastructure building… maybe Democrats also have to start getting dirty?

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

UPDATE:
Sen. Cantwell is now joining me at the top of the 8PM hour, and I’ve moved Gloria Totten to the 9PM hour to make accomodate the Senator’s schedule.

As David Postman reports, Mark Wilson will endorse Sen. Maria Cantwell tomorrow, drop his challenge, and campaign on her behalf full time between now and the November election. I just got off the phone with Wilson, and he sounds as enthusiastic as ever.

As much as he might have tried, and as much as some anti-war Democrats wished it to be, Wilson is no Ned Lamont and Cantwell is no Joe Lieberman. Wilson never had a shot at defeating Cantwell in the primary, and it sounds like he understood this from the get go. What he said he thought he could do was encourage a vigorous debate on the war in Iraq, while keeping those Democrats opposed to the war engaged in the process.

Now, he says, it is time for the party to heal, and come together to help take back the Senate and take back some control of our foreign policy. He says he had a long, personal meeting with Sen. Cantwell and came away convinced that she’s working to bring our troops home. But I’m sure he’ll be willing to put all this in his own words tomorrow.

Yes, my server was down for about 12 hours. My guess is either GOP dirty tricks, or it crashed under the weight of NSA surveillance. Or some “technical” problem.

No doubt Sonics officials and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’ office are feverishly attempting to work out a deal on renovating Key Arena before Initiative 91 passes in a landslide this November. Yesterday, sponsors dropped off over 20,000 signatures for I-91, which would prohibit public subsidies of sports arenas, and a recent poll showed overwhelming support. This puts a pretty big kink in the Sonics’ demand that taxpayers fork over $200 million to keep the team in Seattle.

Ah well, that’s what Sonics management gets for arrogantly overplaying its hand.

Personally, I could care less whether the Sonics stay or leave, but I’ve got nothing against loyal fans who want to keep the team in Seattle if a reasonable deal can be achieved. In that spirit I proposed a somewhat tongue-in-cheek financing scheme a little while back… a Latte Tax that would place the tax burden squarely on the shoulders of those who would benefit most from a $200 million public subsidy: Sonics majority owner and Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz.

Yes, what better way to finance a new arena whose primary purpose is to make a very rich man even richer, than to tax the business that made him so awfully damn rich in the first place? And what could be more delicious than a Marble Mocha Macchiato, than the spectacle of Schultz’s Sonics spending millions of Schultz’s dollars to convince voters to levy a tax on Schultz’s ubiquitous Starbucks?

Not surprisingly, my Latte Tax proposal didn’t get much traction with either local politicians or team officials.

But should the Mayor and the team work out a reasonable deal in which the Sonics pay their fair share, I do have another tax proposal that I hope our state and local elected officials seriously consider: a Jock Tax.

Currently, twenty other states already levy a tax on the income visiting players earn during their “duty days” within the state. Our Sonics players already pay this tax on most of their away games, so it’s only fair that visiting players pay a similar tax when they play games here.

It is also only fair to devote these revenues towards paying for public arenas and stadiums, considering that rapidly escalating player salaries is the primary economic motive behind the demand for ever greater public subsidy. If taxpayers are going to be asked to pay for a new arena, lets make sure the burden falls on those who will benefit most from the tax.

Now I know what some of you are thinking: the Washington State Supreme Court has already ruled a state income tax unconstitutional. But that’s all the more reason to pass a Jock Tax now.

Many constitutional scholars and tax experts, including such notables as William Gates Sr. and UW law professor Hugh Spitzer, believe that the court’s antiquated 1933 decision likely would not hold up today… and what better way to test this precedent than with a relatively inconsequential tax like this?

Thus a Jock Tax is a win-win proposal — it is a fair and reasonable tax that targets those who benefit most from the policy, while bringing new tax revenues into the state. And as a bonus, it finally puts to rest a constitutional red herring that has clouded our tax structure debate for decades.

Under a reasonable deal, the Sonics owners would be asked to pay their fair share towards a new arena, and with a Jock Tax in place, so would the league’s players. As for the public, well, if you ask me, outrageously high ticket and concession prices are already burden enough for even the most diehard fan.

From: David Goldstein
Date: July 7, 2006 12:18:09 PM PDT
To: Tim Eyman
Subject: Your Show on KTTH

Dear Tim,

Congratulations on your guest spot filling in the next two weeks in the 5AM to 9AM slot on KTTH. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Since you seemed so eager to come on my show for the entire three hours, I’m sure you would be just as excited to have me come on one of your shows for the entire four hours. You just name the day, and I’ll show up. (Don’t worry, I have my own pass card to the Entercom studios, so I’ll just let myself in.)

I look forward to an “extended debate on the issues.”

Regards,

David

http://www.horsesass.org/
“Politics as unusual.”

“The David Goldstein Show”
Newsradio 710-KIRO, Sundays 7-10PM

Conspiracy theories surrounding Ken Lay’s death are starting to get some traction over on Huffington Post.

According to 94.9 FM KUOW’s web page, Rep. Dave Reichert will be joining Weekday this morning at 9:00 AM to take questions from callers. But word is Reichert chickened out cancelled, and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner will take his place. (I’m hoping that’s a metaphor for the November election.)

Guess we’ll just have to tune in to see who shows up. Should be worth listening to either way.

UPDATE:
Darcy’s on. If you’re curious where she stands on an issue, give her a call: (800) 289-KUOW

I don’t even bother to read our friend Stefan Sound Politics much anymore unless somebody of substance who occasionally gets attributions wrong, like David Postman points me in that direction. Of course, when I do link on over to read what Stefan Sound Politics has to say, I’m constantly reminded why I rarely bother to read him in the first place.

Stefan Eric Earling accuses Democrats of being “unserious” about Social Security reform, and yet he throws out a paragraph like this:

They continue to claim the so-called Social Security Trust Fund means everything will be fine for decades. Wrong. The special T-Bonds in the Trust Fund are simply an IOU from one government account to another. They’re an IOU that will no doubt be honored, but they’re not an asset you can cash at the bank or sell on the bond market like a regular-issue US Treasury Bond. Redeeming the special bonds means raising taxes or cutting spending to pay for them. Even the MSM is starting to understand that.

So… um, what you are telling us Stefan Eric, is that our government won’t be able to afford to pay back the trillions of dollars it has borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund without raising taxes or cutting spending to pay for it, right?

Hmm.

So then, it isn’t really Social Security that’s heading towards insolvency due to incredibly shortsighted, irresponsible and unserious fiscal policy, but rather, the federal government.

Stefan Eric and the Republicans aren’t trying to fix Social Security. No, they’re trying to use Social Security “reform” to cover up the mess left behind by the most fiscally irresponsible administration in US history. If President Bush and the GOP congressional leadership hadn’t turned record budget surpluses into record budget deficits, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Blaming this looming budget crisis on Social Security is nothing but creative accounting.

People like Stefan Eric see privatization as a twofer: they get to dismantle the crowning achievement of the New Deal while covering up the financial disaster created by their party’s failed policies at home and abroad. And the rhetoric they employ is dishonest as usual.

If Stefan Eric wants a “substantive national debate” let’s have one on our current fiscal crisis, and figure out how we’re going to pay for this administration’s policies and programs instead of passing the cost off to future generations. Are we really at war? Then let’s raise taxes to pay for this war the way we have all previous wars, or dramatically cut services elsewhere, forcing our elected officials to pay the inevitable political price. Let the Republicans tell Americans that we can’t afford things like education, health care or even Social Security at home, because we have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars a year fighting “The Long War” in Iraq.

Let’s have that debate, Stefan Eric. But don’t tell me Democrats are “unserious” about Social Security while Republicans blithely run up the largest budget and balance of trade deficits in US history.

UPDATE:
Well, so much for trusting “somebody of substance like David Postman.” Postman wrote:

Stefan Sharkansky says “Cantwell’s social security stance hurts my head.”

So I read the post on (u)SP, but didn’t bother reading the byline. Turns out it wasn’t written by Stefan after all, it was written by Eric Earling. (Whoever he is.) Doesn’t change my point, but I’ve updated the post accordingly.

In case my enemies are interested in knowing what I look like, I’ll be on Seattle Voices with Eric Liu tonight at 8:00 PM, on The Seattle Channel, channel 21.

Or so I’m told. I don’t actually have cable.

Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Raj Manhas’s Final Recommendation on School Consolidation and Closure has been released, and amongst other changes, my daughter’s school, Graham Hill Elementary, has been removed from the list.

Graham Hill was removed from the preliminary recommendation due to the dispersal of students violating the School Board’s principles of equity and minimizing disruption. While the Southeast quadrant does have enough excess capacity to close an additional school, the majority of that excess capacity is at African American Academy (an alternative school).

I am of course more than pleased that Graham Hill will not be closed, and that my daughter will be able to finish out her final two years. It is a fantastic school and an incredible community; properly funded it could be as good as any school in any of the best public school districts.

But while I thank both the Superintendent and the School Board for listening to our arguments and carefully reexamining both the data and the circumstances, I still come away from this process somewhat disappointed and disillusioned. I cannot help but believe that politics is what got Graham Hill onto the list in the first place, and to some extent it was politics that got our school off the list. We were very fortunate, not only to have the facts on our side, but to have a community of parents and teachers with the time, energy and ability to effectively present them.

There may be other schools still on this list just as worthy of being saved, but without such a loud and convincing voice.

I also believe that the imperative to close a large number of schools now, and all at once, was overstated from the start. In fact, there will be very few if any cost savings from these closings, while many children will have their education disrupted. I still believe that the driving force behind this round of school closures was a demand for political cover from legislators who otherwise lack the balls to fight for the kind of funding increases all our state’s schools desperately need.

And that’s where the fight goes next: to the Legislature.

I come away from this battle with an even greater respect for my daughter’s school, but with a profound sense of cynicism as to the district administration’s ability to effectively serve all our children. Gross inequities between North End and South End schools that I previously had only intuited, have now been laid out before me in neat, irrefutable spreadsheets, and I am immensely disappointed at the lack of creativity and forthrightness with which the district is addressing this problem. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I intend to exert time and energy exploring possible structural reforms.

But… the immediate fight is with the Legislature. No doubt there are inefficiencies in the Seattle Public Schools as there are in all bureaucracies (both public and private sector) but the real crisis facing K-12 education in this state is not inefficient spending, but inadequate funding. One of the major differences between a top-notch public school like the Bellevue district’s Medina Elementary, and my daughter’s Graham Hill, is the $500,000 a year the families of the Medina PTSA put into their school versus the $30,000 our largely low- and middle-income families struggle to raise.

This is money that not only buys books and computers and basic supplies, but which is used to buy down class size and give their children music, art, phys-ed and all the other elements of a well-rounded curriculum our state used to give all its children. Washington state has by law one of the most equitable school financing systems in the country, but by dramatically underfunding it and leaving it to families to make up the difference, we are gradually creating the type gross disparity — both within and between districts — that has become commonplace throughout much of the rest of the nation.

Children don’t choose to live in poverty, so why should we base the quality of their education on their parent’s income?

Whether that means raising revenues or shifting spending or some combination of the two, we need to spend more money on our schools. It is time once again to remind the Legislature and the Governor that public education is the state’s primary obligation… an obligation they are failing to meet.

Enron founder Ken Lay, facing a life term for fraud and conspiracy in one of the largest corporate scams in history, died last night of an “apparent heart attack.”

Condolences to his family, but… I’d just like to point out that had this happened during the Clinton administration, and had Lay been Clinton’s primary financial backer, the right-wingers would be all abuzz today with conspiracy theories about how Clinton had Lay killed so as to keep him from talking. You know they would.

I’m just saying….

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

According to the Seattle Times’ David Postman, Rep. Jay Inslee has drawn a challenger.

Issaquah School Board member Larry Ishmael, a Dino Rossi pal, is now also a congressional candidate, running against incumbent Democrat Jay Inslee in the First District.

Ishmael was welcomed to the race by state Republican Party Chairwoman Diane Tebelius.

Um… gee… but last time I checked, wasn’t Issaquah still in the Eighth Congressional District?

According to our good friend Stefan’s online voter database (you know, the one with online ads that violate the prohibition on using such databases for commercial purposes,) Ishmael has indeed been registered to vote in Issaquah since 1987. Which kinda makes sense considering living within the boundaries of a school district is a sort of a prerequisite for being eligible to serve on its board.

So if Ishmael is indeed running against Rep. Inslee in the First District, one can only assume that either….

A) Ishamel has actually moved into the First District, changed his registration, and formally resigned from the Issaquah School Board, or

B) Is so unengaged politically that he doesn’t even know who the fuck his own congressman is.

Only an idiot would pick up and move districts just to make a futile, last minute run against a popular Democratic incumbent in an election year when Republicans are proving about as welcome as ringworm; but it would be amusing if it was the latter. And awfully embarrassing, not just for Ishmael, but for Tebelius, who probably should have learned something from the whole Will Baker debacle about the importance of vetting candidates — even joke candidates — before publicly announcing the party’s endorsement.

In any case, Ishmael’s lament that “the First District needs better leadership” falls a bit flat considering he doesn’t live there. Perhaps he was thinking of the Eighth District?