HorsesAss.Org

I’m blogging on the radio tonight (7 PM to 10 PM, 710-KIRO), so you all talk amongst yourselves.

In addition to my normal Sunday night slot, I’m subbing for Frank Shiers tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: How do we achieve energy independence in WA state and nationwide? Rep. Jay Inslee joins us to discuss the New Apollo Project and the Renewable Energy Initiative (I-937), plus a congressional update.

8PM: Can Seattle afford to fix its transportation problems? Can we afford not to? The Stranger’s Erica C. Barnett drops by to give us the latest on the Viaduct, the 520 Floating Bridge, expanded bus service… and how we’re gonna pay for it all.

9PM: Can politicians continue to lie in the age of the blogosphere without looking like, um… liars? We’ll be talking to Darryl of Hominid Views about how his debunking of a Mike McGavick fib managed to quickly wend its way through the newspapers, and how this might change political campaigns for the better.

Tune in or, um… don’t.

I do not know much about University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill other than the headlines. Apparently, he’s produced some questionable research and some unquestionably offensive remarks, and some in the right-wing punditocracy have cynically tried to paint him as a left-wing standard bearer. (Um… he’s not.)

So I was curious to learn of his recent speaking engagement at Western Washington University, and surprised to read the following account:

When he finished with his speech, Churchill invited Aaron Dixon, co-founder of the Seattle Chapter of the Black Panther Party and a Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, to the stage.

Dixon said he supports Churchill’s ideas and treasures the camaraderie they shared after living through the aftermath of their mutual friend, [Fred] Hampton’s, death.

Um… personally, I tend to fall on the side of academic freedom no matter what the political perspective, but if I were a serious candidate for U.S. Senate, I don’t think I’d be publicly stating my unqualified support for the ideas of a man who infamously described the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns.”

I dunno. Just seems like a lapse of political judgement on Dixon’s part.

Way back in November I proposed that one of the funding mechanisms for coming up with the extra bucks to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct with a tunnel should be a “special taxing district,” much like the local improvement district that is funding half the costs of the South Lake Union streetcar line. And just for good measure I repeated the suggestion again in March.

Well, whatever his inspiration, it is gratifying to see Mayor Greg Nickels asking property owners who stand to benefit most from the tunnel alternative to consider exactly that — a local improvement district that could defray as much as $250 million of the project’s cost. According to Office of Policy and Management deputy director Michael Mann:

“It’s an appropriate way to help fund it,” he said “There are clearly properties that will benefit, so that’s what we’re working on.”

Sure, this is a pretty obvious piece of the funding puzzle so I’m certainly not suggesting that the Mayor is getting his budgeting cues from the pages of HA. (Though he could certainly do worse.) Still, you can’t blame me for patting myself on the back for being so far out in front on such a creative revenue proposal.

And it wouldn’t be the first the time.

After the recent ruling invalidating Initiative 747’s property tax revenue limits, Governor Christine Gregoire and other elected officials were quick to reassure voters that they would restore some sort of property tax relief should the decision survive appeal. But before Olympia jumps to re-legislate Tim Eyman’s ridiculous one percent cap — or even some higher, more reasonable figure — I hope they carefully consider a proposal I have been pushing for nearly three years: a Property Tax Homestead Exemption.

The concept is simple; every homeowner is offered a flat exemption on their primary residence — their “homestead” — while property tax rates are increased to offset any lost revenues. Because the proportion of property exempted declines the higher the relative price of the home, the amount of relief provided, both in real dollars and percent of total burden, declines accordingly. Essentially, the lowest priced homes see the greatest tax relief while the highest priced homes would see a modest tax increase.

Sound confusing? Link on over to TaxSanity.org where a handy chart shows the impact a $30,000 homestead exemption would have had on average property taxes back in 2004. Forget about the actual numbers, as that part is up for negotiation. The point is that only the top 4% of homeowners would see a rise in property taxes, while owners of low priced homes would realize substantial tax relief.

Like my proposal for a local improvement district to help pay for a tunnel, the Property Tax Homestead Exemption is not some harebrained idea I pulled out of my ass… indeed 37 other states already have a similar exemption, credit or circuit-breaker to help protect low- and middle-income homeowners from the tax impact of rapidly rising property values. Over the past few years such an exemption was twice introduced to the Legislature, and was an integral part of Ron Sims’ tax restructuring plan when he ran for governor.

I raise the issue again now because if lawmakers are going to consider tax relief, they need to start considering tax fairness as well as total tax burden. Washington state has the most regressive tax structure in the nation, and it is interesting to note that all that separates us from number two, Florida, is the fact that they happen to have a homestead exemption on the books.

Even if the state Supreme Court eventually upholds I-747, the lower court decision has given us an opportunity to have a reasoned public debate over the wisdom of tax cutting policies that inevitably give the greatest benefit to our wealthiest citizens while heaping the greatest impact on those who can afford it least. Many local taxing districts, particularly those in rural areas, are on the verge of insolvency due to unrealistic revenue growth limits that fail to accommodate for inflationary pressures on fire, police, public health and other vital public services, let alone increases in demand. And while the promise of “tax relief” surely has great political appeal, any policy that ignores adequacy and fairness is irresponsible.

It is time for our elected officials to stop reacting to anti-tax demagogues like Tim Eyman, and start proposing proactive, creative solutions. It is time for a little leadership.

When the New York Times bestseller list comes out on July 2, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth will sit in the number one spot atop the Paperback Non-Fiction category… that according to publisher Rodale Inc. Meanwhile the hit film of the same name has just become the tenth highest grossing documentary of all time, with $7.3 million in sales after only four weeks in release.

Gitesh Pandya of BoxOfficeGuru.com calls the film a sleeper hit that he predicts will continue strongly as it expands into theaters.

Pandya says the audience for the movie skews older, and adult ticket-buyers don’t always rush out to a film on opening weekend.

Brandon Gray of BoxOfficeMojo.com says Truth could “could double what it has” by the end of summer and cross into the top five documentaries of all time, surpassing Super Size Me, Mad Hot Ballroom and Winged Migration. […] Few documentaries make more than a couple of million dollars in theaters before moving on to DVD and television.

An Inconvenient Truth may not become a blockbuster like Fahrenheit 9/11, but both the film and the book are certainly achieving their goal of educating a large, mainstream audience about the scientific consensus over global warming. If you haven’t already seen it, I urge you to see it now.

I’ve got mixed feelings about polling data. On the one hand, when they say what I want, I like them. On the other hand, when they don’t say what I want… not so much.

The truth is that this far out from the race, reporting polling data is more useful at shaping public behavior than predicting it. That’s why Republicans have been so keen on waving the latest Rasmussen Reports poll that shows the contest between Sen. Maria Cantwell and Republican challenger Mike McGavick narrowing to a 44 percent to 40 percent margin. Rasmussen calls it “a tossup.”

Yeah… whatever.

Forget for a moment that Rasmussen is widely considered to be a partisan Republican pollster, and that computerized, auto-dial polls in general aren’t considered to be all that accurate. Yeah, ignore the fact that many news agencies, including The Associated Press, The Hotline and Roll Call have a policy of not reporting on robo-polls, and that CNN polling chief Keating Holland says he finds them unreliable:

Rasmussen Reports uses another questionable technique to gather its polling data: interactive voice technology (IVT), in which a computer does the calling and the interviewing. Though Rasmussen himself said that it is “easier to get people to talk to a computer than it used to be,” polling units that use IVT have a reputation for low response rates. “It’s a far cry from having an interviewer,” Belden said. Holland does not let CNN report results from IVT polls. “I find [IVT] polls unreliable,” he said. “I’ve actually been polled, and it was far too easy to screw around with it, which I did.” He added, “People feel a bigger obligation to tell the truth to a real person.” SurveyUSA, another prolific polling organization, also uses IVT.

Yeah, forget all that. And while your at it, forget the fact these polls tend to swing all over the place. (Does anybody really believe that Gov. Christine Gregoire’s approval margin has swung 11 points in the past month? Um… because of what?) And forget the fact that despite all the ups and downs, Strategic Vision’s May 2006 poll has Sen. Cantwell almost exactly where she was last August.

Go ahead… ignore all of that. It’s not the point. Let’s just accept the Rasmussen poll as cold, hard fact.

And in that context what leaps off the page at me is: how the fuck does McGavick expect to win with only 40 percent of the vote?

I don’t need a poll to tell me that Cantwell’s refusal to throw her base a bone on the Iraq war is hurting her support amongst anti-war Democrats. We all know that. What’s surprising to me is how little traction McGavick is managing to generate despite a yearlong campaign and hundreds of thousands of dollars of unanswered advertising. Back on April 4, Rasmussen had him at 40 percent. That’s exactly where they have him today. Big whoop. The McGavick folks can talk all they want about “closing the gap”, but they haven’t closed anything — it’s Cantwell’s numbers that have moved, not McGavick’s.

Let’s be honest, these aren’t much better than Will Baker numbers… just a few points higher than what you automatically get for sticking an “R” next to your name. Sure, some angry Democrats are awfully pissed at Cantwell, but there’s absolutely no indication that this is leading anybody to vote for McGavick.

And when it comes right down to it, does anybody really believe that more than a handful of anti-war Democrats are going to vote for McGavick just to punish Cantwell? For that matter, does anybody believe that Green Party candidate, scofflaw, and first-time-voter Aaron Dixon can possibly draw much more than a couple points? I don’t think so.

McGavick is going to have to give the public a reason to vote for him if he’s to have a chance of winning in November, and his cynical “civility” campaign is just not gonna do it. Meanwhile Cantwell is sitting on a $6 million war chest she hasn’t even started to spend, and if McGavick doesn’t hurry up and define himself, she’s gonna do it for him.

So believe the polls if you want. But if you do, I suggest you believe the entire poll.

Oh my gosh! Paid signature gatherers lying about an initiative..? Who knew?

As King County Council President Larry Phillips predicted Sunday night on “The David Goldstein Show” (Newsradio 710-KIRO, Sundays 7PM-10PM), the council voted Monday to approve a move to all vote-by-mail elections once certain conditions are met.

I’ve found it difficult to muster up the enthusiasm to write about the council’s vote because it was totally expected, and really should not have been controversial, and as much as I’ll personally miss the civic ritual of going to the polling place, I simply cannot defend maintaining two distinct elections systems when 80 percent of voters (and climbing) routinely choose one over the other. Anybody who closely followed the controversy generated by the near-tie in the 2004 gubernatorial election understands the operational advantages of consolidation, and it is disingenuous of KCRE’s most vocal critics to advocate for reform, and then stand in its way.

It is particularly difficult to square the strenuous objections of Republicans with the party’s general apathy towards towards all vote-by-mail in 34 other, mostly rural (i.e. Republican) counties. Apparently, Republicans can be trusted to conduct vote-by-mail elections, but Democrats cannot… at least that’s the only logic I can come up with.

In the end, vote-by-mail passed along strict party lines. The GOP reaction?

Ordinance passes 5 Democrats, 4 Republicans. Oh well. Nothing partisan here.

A partisan vote? No shit, Sherlock.

But then, that’s what you get when you provoke a partisan battle in a jurisdiction in which your party is in the distinct minority.

The Seattle Weekly has joined the blogosphere, and I love the name, “The Daily Weekly.” Now that you’re a blog, does this mean you no longer pay any of your writers?

Oy… when will the politicians learn?

There was a time when candidates and their surrogates could pretty much say anything they wanted, comfortable in the knowledge that busy reporters weren’t likely to take the time necessary to meticulously sift through all their bullshit. But in the age of the blogosphere you never know who’s going to whip out Lexis-Nexis and shove your nose in it.

That’s exactly what Darryl at Hominid Views has done with a blatantly dishonest assertion by Lobbyist Mike McGavick. Today’s Yakima Herald-Republic reports that Sen. Maria Cantwell wants to raise fuel economy standards to 35 MPG by 2017, to which McGavick stupidly responds:

[…] he’s long supported increased vehicle fuel efficiency and suggested Cantwell is late to the issue.

“The senator’s been on the energy committee so she’s had plenty of time to work on CAFE standards. Too bad it didn’t come up six years ago,” he said.

Well, if McGavick has long supported raising CAFE standards, Darryl certainly couldn’t find any record of it: no congressional testimony, no position papers, no statements to the press. Indeed, a quick bit of Googling of my own found that even when a commenter on McGavick’s own campaign blog raised this exact same issue — asking “How about raising the CAFE standards?” — McGavick failed to respond.

And what about McGavick’s snide dismissal of Cantwell as late to the issue? Darryl goes directly to the Congressional Record to show it for the lie that it is, pointing to a March 2002 speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in which Cantwell bluntly summarizes her position.

I continue to believe that raising CAFE standards is absolutely critical in promoting more efficient fuel use.

Uh-huh. So I guess the hallmark of a campaign based on civility is lying about your opponent’s record?

If McGavick thinks he can lay stinking turds like this one without stepping in his own excrement he’s got another thing coming. Bloggers like me and Darryl are reading the papers, and the papers are reading us, and if there’s one thing a reporter hates more than being scooped, it’s being pooper-scooped. There’s only so much lying crap like this the media will take from McGavick before they start calling him on his bullshit.

Lesson learned? Somehow I doubt it.

It’s not surprising, but it’s important news nonetheless: EMILY’s List has just endorsed Darcy Burner in her race for WA’s 8th Congressional District.

“Darcy Burner is an accomplished businesswoman, an active leader in her community, and a dedicated mother,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List. “Darcy knows how to get things done, and I am confident she will represent her district in Washington with the same vigor and integrity that she brought to the high-tech world. This is the Northwest’s most competitive Congressional race, and EMILY’s List will devote its significant energy to ensuring Darcy Burner’s victory. “

With over 100,000 members (over 4,400 in WA), EMILY’s List is the largest political action committee in the nation, with an impressive track record of helping to elect women, including 61 to the U.S. House, 11 to the U.S. Senate and eight governors.

In addition to the resources EMILY’s List can bring to bear in this campaign, the endorsement is also significant in that it demonstrates to other potential donors and endorsers how winnable Burner’s race really is. EMILY’s List is nothing if not politically savvy, and they don’t throw away money or toss out their endorsements willy-nilly. This is yet another indication that the people who know, know Burner can win.

That said, Burner is in the middle of a push to raise $75,000 in response to President Bush’s visit on behalf of Dave Reichert, and she’s only a little more than half-way to her goal just two days before Friday’s deadline. So please give now to help push Burner over the top, either directly to the campaign or through my Act Blue page.

Nothing says "fun" like a bunch of drunken bloggers sitting around a table discussing tax policy. No, really… nothing does say "fun" like that. In fact, I think we’re going to have to invent a whole new word.

Joining me in a wonkishly entertaining and surprisingly passionate discussion of tax restructuring were Mollie, Will, Carl, Sandeep, Lee and newbie Ray. Topics of discussion included Washington state’s incredibly regressive tax structure and creative proposals to fix it, plus Eastern Washington secession (the great state of Martha?), Eastern King County secession (wouldn’t it be great to have two Democratic counties in the region?), the partisan battle over vote-by-mail, and Congressional Republicans’ refusal to prohibit spending on illegal surveillance.

The show is 53:09, and is available here as a 34.2 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

Oh no, Roger… watch out!

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I’m coming straight from our school’s PTA meeting, so you can be sure I’ll be needing a drink.

If you happen to be a liberal drinker on the other side of the mountains, the Tri-Cities chapter of DL also meets Tuesday nights, 7 PM, Atomic Ale, 1015 Lee Blvd., in Richland. Go ask Jimmy for more details.

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the rule of law today, and call me a cynic, but I’m guessing the rule of law will fail.

Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Bob Inglis (R-SC) will offer the following one-sentence amendment to the pending Defense Appropriations bill (H.R.5631):

None of the funds made available in this Act may be expended to conduct electronic surveillance (as defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)) of any United States person (as defined in section 101(i) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1801(i)) in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

This should be one of those “duh-uh” votes — an amendment so simple in both language and intent that even a congressman can understand it — for all it does is merely prohibit expending funds on surveillance activities that are already prohibited by law. Well, um… duh-uh.

So I’m not sure what is more ironic (or frightening): that such an amendment is even necessary, or that a majority of Republicans will likely vote against it?

Relying on an extreme version of the unitary executive doctrine and certain undefined wartime powers, the President and his men have chosen to interpret FISA and other laws as they see fit. With the Republican-controlled Congress lacking the will or the balls to fulfill its constitutionally mandated role as a coequal branch of government, the only Congressional power not left up to Presidential interpretation is the power of the purse.

That is the power the amendment’s bipartisan sponsors seek to exercise here, and it is hard to understand how their colleagues can possibly argue against it. Don’t appropriate money for illegal activities! What’s so controversial about that?

Of course our vaunted checks and balances have long since collapsed under a Republican leadership that values party loyalty over that to the Constitution, and seems to ignore the possibility that the next imperial President could be a Democrat. Still, Rep. Inslee — the amendment’s lead sponsor — remains hopeful that the amendment will pass and the rule of law will prevail. For if we don’t do something to rein in this “radical and dangerous” expansion of presidential power he said, “we might as well kiss off Democracy.”

Pucker up, America.

[Cross-posted at Huffington Post]

UPDATE:
After much spirited debate, the amendment was defeated on a voice vote. The cowards weren’t even willing to go on the record.

Members of the intelligence committee refused to verify if the current wiretapping program complied with FISA. So much for the rule of law.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Well, apparently there was recorded vote, and the amendment failed 207 to 219. Closer than I expected. But still, the vast majority of Republicans refused to pass an amendment that would have prohibited spending taxpayer’s money on illegal activities. What’s up with that?