Search Results for: ’

In my post on I-1053, I wrote, “I’m not a fan of the initiative process, but I think we do need to respect the will of the people.” This post will expand on that a little. Initiatives are simply a tool to make laws. We shouldn’t treat them as anything more or less.

The biggest problem is that they are a blunt tool. The legislative process has hearings and amendments. Better (or worse) ideas make it into the final product. With initiatives, the final outcome is the same one people were collecting signatures on months and months prior. It doesn’t take into concern the opposition. You don’t need to talk to attorneys to see if it passes constitutional muster, or look into other ways of doing something. It is all or nothing.

And this all or nothing approach tends to hamper debate. If an initiative passes, then it’s the will of the people. This despite the fact that the people didn’t get any alternatives. Their will was based on if they approved the language of the initiative or not, not on what their most preferred alternative might have been. That has real value, and should be respected, but we should also keep it in perspective. And when an initiative fails, it often kills momentum for whatever was being worked for, like the income tax (although, I’m not sure how much momentum it actually had, and oddly it hasn’t done much about liquor privatization).

Another problem is the influence of money. Most of these Eyman initiatives in recent years have got on the ballot with the financing largely of one man. Of course, most normal people can’t afford to do that. And when they do get on the ballot, even political junkies like me get sick of seeing all the ads and getting mailings. Money does play too large a role in the initiative process. Still, money also plays too large a role in the legislative process. The rich and powerful will use their power in the crafting of laws, no matter how we make those laws.

Because of all this money, often the more grassroots voices the initiative process was envisioned to give a voice get shouted out. It’s tougher for grassroots signature gathering efforts to get a foothold amid the paid signature gathering. It’s tougher for the opposition to raise the money to compete with some of the corporate campaigns we’ve seen recently.

Still, even for all the faults in the process, people still do get to vote on specific issues, and that is rather remarkable. So, how do we judge an initiative? The same way we’d judge any law: who wins, who loses, who it helps, and who it hurts.

Oh look, here’s a press release from Representative Katrina Asay. Enjoy.

Last fall, voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 1053 (I-1053), which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve tax increases. Voters in the 30th Legislative District approved I-1053 by more than 66 percent.

Yes. I think it was a mistake. Did voters realize what would be cut if the legislature passed a no new taxes budget? Did they make a guess about the revenue forecasts that have come in since then? Would they vote for the kinds of cuts that Republicans (and too many Democrats) want if those cuts were on the ballot? I’m not a fan of the initiative process, but I think we do need to respect the will of the people. However, I don’t think we can divine the will of the people about this budget by any Tim Eyman initiative. And I certainly don’t think we can figure out the will of the people with regard to local tax revenues.

Voters have approved the tax constraints found in I-1053 several times, most recently with Initiative 960, which was thrown out by the majority party last year. This allowed the majority party to increase taxes with a simple majority vote, or 50 plus one. In no mood to be taxed even more in this battered economy, voters in November quickly repealed a host of tax increases put in place by the majority party in the 2010 legislative session.

I know what Rep. Asay means, but that first sentence seems to imply that I-960 happened after 1053. Also, the will of the people is Democratic control of both houses of the legislature. Has been for a decade. Yet, oddly I don’t see Republican press releases demanding whatever Democrats want in the legislature.

That’s why I was so disappointed when majority Democrats in the House passed an amended version of Senate Bill 5457, the so-called “congestion relief bill.” Despite the catchy title, I voted against this bill because, as it was changed in the House, it does an end-around the voter-approved two-thirds vote requirement to increase taxes.

1053 didn’t say anything about counties or municipalities. We’re now divining the will of the voters based on things they didn’t vote for or against. That simply wasn’t on the ballot. In fact, King County was pretty close to evenly split. I’d bet Seattle and some suburban cities opposed it. Does that mean that their city councils should have majority rule like the framers of the state constitution envisioned?

Senate Bill 5457, as amended, would authorize a simple majority of King County Council members to impose up to an additional $20 in annual car-tab tax to help maintain Metro transit service. From all reports, the King County executive, once the bill is signed into law, will ask for the full amount of the tax. This would raise an estimated $25.5 million for each of the two years the tax will be in place.

Awesome. As a King County resident and a car owner, I’ll gladly pay my share. If enough people don’t like it they can either try to block it at the ballot like many of the state taxes last year, or if they don’t like it but not enough to do that, they can vote out the people who agree to the taxes. Democracy. Awesome.

What makes Senate Bill 5457 so offensive to me is that while the voters approved I-1053 to ensure any tax increase would be required to receive a two-thirds supermajority vote to be approved, the measure violates the will of the people by allowing a simple majority on the King County Council to approve the additional tax.

Again, NOBODY VOTED ON IF KING COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A 2/3 MAJORITY TO PASS ANYTHING. It wasn’t on the ballot. You can’t call the will of the people on an at best tangentially related question. This is crazy.

I see this as a way for the majority party to raise the ante when it comes to how many shenanigans voters will put up with when it comes to how new and increased taxes are approved. I feel as though they are basically telling citizens that while voters clearly and unequivocally directed the Legislature to have a supermajority consensus to increase taxes; they can snub that directive with a simple majority vote of legislators. Now, we are faced with a bill that could allow local governments to skirt the newly-approved mandate from last fall.

Local governments aren’t skirting anything. The mandates were to the legislature. And they were dumb. But even if they were the most sensible policy ever, they have nothing to do with King County.

If there is a good case to be made for higher taxes, let those who are asking for them convince others to support the idea. It’s that simple.

You mean like a majority of the King County Council, the King County Executive, enough voters not to sign a county wide referendum or initiative on that, or if there is a referendum to vote on it? You mean convince those people? Because there are already plenty of checks and balances in the system.

Additionally, and not to be lost in this debate, is that voters approved Initiative 695 specifically to ensure car tabs would cost no more than $30. Whether you like the idea or not, it’s what the people of this state approved. However, each year the Legislature has offered local governments the opportunity to add $20 here and there, weight fees and now this. Senate Bill 5457 is another example of why voters again decided to put such strict standards in place to raise taxes.

695 was ruled unconstitutional. So basically, we have to uphold the will of the people to support one unconstitutional thing, possibly another unconstitutional thing (the previous 2/3 rules have all been on standing, not on the merits). Also, 695 failed in King County. So by this logic, the will of the people is that they have higher car tabs. Why do you hate the imagined will of the people based on something that they didn’t really vote on, Katrina Asay?

This bill is a bad deal for taxpayers and breaks faith with voters. Because the House amended a Senate bill, it must now go back for the Senate to approve or reject the change. For all of our sakes, I can only hope the bill is set aside. It’s the right thing to do to maintain the integrity and spirit of I-1053.

It gives the voters plenty of say. As does every question before a legislative body in Washington. And it helps Metro get through tough fucking times.

Sweet Jesus! You know the Wingnuts have huddled on the right-most precipice of crazy when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has to step in as the voice of moderation:

Calling it “a bridge too far,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed the state legislature’s controversial “birther bill” and also rejected a bill that would have permitted guns on college campuses.

The bill to permit guns on college campuses wasn’t so much about moderation as it was about poor authorship:

The bill would have initially allowed guns to be brought into classrooms, but was revised to limit gun possession to sidewalks and roads on campuses.

Brewer told Fox News that while she is usually a supporter of pro-gun legislation, she vetoed the bill because it “was just very poorly and sloppily written and it just was not defined in the manner of which people could interpret it or could it be enforced.”

In smacking down Teh Birfers Brewer expressed some concern…

“I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said in the letter. “This is a bridge too far.”

Huh? So Arizona lawmakers wanted the presidency limited to folks who have undergone genital mutilation and practice a subset of religions that baptize infants?

For infidels who are neither circumscribed nor baptized as infants, perhaps an original invitation to the placenta feast would work?

Well…good on Jan, although she may have ulterior motives—I just guessin’ she does not have an official Certificate of Circumcision Circumcision Certificate.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who really wasn’t born in the United States, applauds.

But Teh Crazy is being upheld by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal:

Gov. Bobby Jindal would sign a bill requiring presidential candidates to provide a copy of their birth certificate to qualify for the Louisiana ballot if it reaches his desk, a spokesman said Monday.

A spokesman says Gov. Bobby Jindal will sign a bill to require presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate as proof of citizenship.
“It’s not part of our package, but if the Legislature passes it we’ll sign it,” press secretary Kyle Plotkin said.

(And if the birfer legislation is part of the package, one must wonder if the candidate’s package would be part of the legislation.)

And Indiana is considering joining the Birferati:

Indiana Senator Mike Delph is seeking a summer study committee review of whether Indiana should require Presidential candidates to prove they meet the constitutional requirements of age, residency and citizenship.

(And The Donald is just getting warmed up, while awaiting the results from his investigative teams in Hawaii and Kenya.)

So…maybe not such a bad day for Birfers. In fact, it is turning out to be a downright joyous day, since a new Public Policy Polling poll of Iowa Republicans found:

There is a significant birther presence in Iowa- 48% of Republican voters say they don’t think Barack Obama was born in the United States…

I hear placenta makes an excellent pizza topping.

Following up on Friday’s post on the medical marijuana bill, there are a few additional items I wanted to comment on:

– In this AP report from Gene Johnson, I completely agree with Governor Gregoire’s comment at the end:

“She’s making a mistake,” said Morgan Fox, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project. “The letter from the U.S. attorneys says that they can prosecute, not that they will prosecute. In Maine, in Rhode Island, in New Jersey, those states all went ahead and set up dispensary system. They haven’t received any threats or reaction from federal law enforcement.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which has promoted the state’s legislation, echoed that.

Gregoire said it didn’t matter: “I don’t care what any other state does.”

This is unquestionably true, because if the Governor actually cared about what’s happened in other states, she would know that she’s about to make the same crucial mistake that allowed California’s system to become such a mess. Because it’s a large state with a lot of patients, California was the first state to have an underground dispensary system supplying patients and striving to do it in a legal way. At the time, the Bush Administration was absolutely clear about the issue. They would go after anyone trying to produce or sell medical marijuana. As a result, the state of California balked at establishing state-wide measures, and a bill was passed that allowed cities and counties to regulate it.

Many of those cities struggled to make regulations and they ended up with situations like Los Angeles – where they couldn’t establish regulations and ended up with over a thousand dispensaries throughout the city that they later tried to shut down – and like Morro Bay, where an honest dispensary operator who had the blessing of its community was railroaded by the feds. Even today, California’s system has problems and cities are still struggling to come up with appropriate regulations. One of the reasons that the Obama Administration changed their policy to take a more hands-off approach towards the state medical marijuana laws was so that this situation could be avoided and states could be free to regulate this better. They don’t like coming right out and saying that, so when they’re asked directly about their policy, they couch their response in language that explains that they “could” go after it without making it clear that Obama has specified that they won’t. And Governor Gregoire could easily figure this out for herself simply by looking at the other states that are regulating medical marijuana at the state level using state employees (like New Mexico, Colorado, New Jersey, and Rhode Island). But as she’s clearly stated, she “doesn’t care what any other state does”. And it will be us who pays for the Governor’s willful ignorance.

– Ironically, members of the Cannabis Defense Coalition also continue to support a veto of the bill. A big part of their opposition is from late amendments that strip away some protections from being searched and arrested and from greater emphasis on having people sign up in a patient registry, which is extremely unpopular among the organization’s members. No formal vote has been taken by the group, but I’d be surprised if even 25% of CDC members want this bill to pass. With that said, I want to explain my rationale for continuing to support the bill despite these amendments.

These amendments aren’t great (and I don’t like the registry), but they’re more illogical than dangerous. In the past, law enforcement have generally gone after patients for one of three reasons: 1. Because the patient is growing for himself or herself and law enforcement is convinced that they’re growing too much for it to be for one person. 2. Because law enforcement will see a patient as an soft target to roll over on a provider. 3. Because law enforcement simply doesn’t care about medical marijuana and sees all use as illegal.

Even though the late amendment from Rep. Christopher Hurst gives law enforcement greater ability to search and arrest people, the other parts of the bill cut off much of the rationale for law enforcement to go after patients for the first two reasons above. For instance, in the Snoqualmie case, a patient like Jeff Roetter (who died of an epileptic seizure as Snoqualmie police were squeezing him to testify against his provider) doesn’t have to be at risk of being used like a pawn in order to get to a bigger fish if he’s getting marijuana at state-licensed dispensary. And for people who live in areas where growing is still very risky (like the Olsons in Kitsap county), they no longer have to take that risk.

Even if this bill were to pass, though, I’d still expect a very small number of law enforcement officials in the state to go after patients for the third reason – purely out of a belief that medical marijuana is invalid and that patients are criminals. The initial bill had fines for law enforcement officials who did this, but those were stripped out right away. This is a problem that isn’t going to go away with any bill, at least not one that could pass the legislature. There are other potential problems with the bill (and they’re listed out here), but I still think the best approach is to pass this bill and fix those problems after we get a lay of the land rather than scrap this bill and try to start from scratch again.

– Finally, the Tacoma News Tribune’s latest comedic output is here. I could write a rather lengthy post pointing out all the factual inaccuracies and flaws in their logic, but I’ve done that before and don’t need to do that again.

I just want to cut to the heart of the matter, since the major difference between the “responsible medical marijuana bill” they touted on March 10 and the “Legislature’s plans to expand medical marijuana far beyond the voters’ original mandate” they referred to it as on April 17 is that dispensaries can now be for-profit. The only other major difference that I’m aware of is the supremacy of the state regulations, something that the city of Tacoma supports and which is vital to keep Washington’s system from looking more like California’s. So the question is, why is it such a problem for a marijuana dispensary to operate for profit? And why does this expand it beyond the voters’ original mandate? I realize that the Tacoma News Tribune probably isn’t interested in serious debate on this topic, but I know there are a lot of residents down there who are, and they’re not being served by a paper that hasn’t been willing to be serious on this topic for as long as I’ve been following it.

In the debate about how the legislature should balance the budget* one of the main liberal arguments is that we should close the loopholes that have accumulated in the tax system over the years. At least have a look at what ones are and aren’t working any more. It makes sense, after all that what the legislature passed 10, 20, 30 years ago or more in better economic times may not make sense today when put against the tough budget reality. But don’t worry, Representative Ed Orcutt knows better. Not how to balance the budget, silly: what to call the loopholes.

As the Legislature contemplates how to deal with a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall, one of the more common phrases heard around the Capitol is “closing tax loopholes.” While this may seem admirable on the surface, a closer look reveals a complex economic system that can’t be oversimplified by catchy special interest sound bites.

Special interest = struggling families who have lost medical and dental care, and or schools.
Special interest ≠ out of state banks that pay millions of dollars less because of these loopholes.

For most, the term “loophole” conjures up images of shady characters in smoke-filled back rooms scheming for ways to buck the system. But here in Washington state, we don’t have “tax loopholes” we have tax incentives.

If you use a different word, it makes it OK.

Why is this clarification important? Because these tax incentives have been enacted via very deliberate legislative action.

No lobbyist has ever influenced any tax cut bill, you see. And any tax break that ever once made sense will forever make sense again.

In order to be passed into law, a tax incentive must be subjected to: a public hearing; amendment; a majority vote of committee members; and then subjected again to amendment and a 50-vote requirement to pass from the House floor. It then has to go through the same rigorous process in the Senate (with a 25-person vote requirement). If it passes both the House and Senate, it still must be signed into law by the governor. Often, these proposals receive far more than the 50 and 25 votes needed. So, it is a rigorous and difficult task for a bill to be passed and enacted.

The same process will also apply to any repeal (except it may also go to the voters or have to be 2/3 of the legislature). So, problem solved.

Furthermore, this process is done publicly with bill hearings announced in advance and testimony taken in public meetings. Anyone can now access any hearing via TVW webcast. There is no hiding. And lobbyists for the groups who are now calling for the repeal of these policies had every opportunity to testify against the proposals. Did they? Weren’t the bills still passed – and these incentives enacted – because of their benefit to our economy?

Well, our economy looks very different than it did when those loopholes passed. So it makes sense that we would see if they still make sense. We also enacted the social safety net to benefit our economy, not to mention to keep the most vulnerable safe. By the logic of the previous paragraph, we can’t dismantle that, since it had hearings and passed the legislature, etc.? And our schools have been funded by previous legislatures, and there’s even a clause about a paramount duty.

The fact is these incentives have been beneficial to workers, employers and communities throughout the state. Thousands of jobs with high wages and benefits have been created and many jobs in manufacturing have been saved. They worked because a lower tax rate brought businesses to Washington that would not have come otherwise.

Instead of actual facts to back this up, could you please give me an example you pulled out of your ass?

Which would you choose, a tax rate of 0.5 percent on $10 million or a 1.5 percent rate applied to $0? I choose the 0.5 percent rate as it creates jobs and generates revenue. The higher rate does not because many of those economic activities would gravitate toward more competitive states. That means the lower rate has actually protected or enhanced the funding for many of the programs that special interest groups are now trying to protect. Repeal of these incentives would leave employers with little option but to lay off more workers. Can we really afford that? Our efforts should be to create jobs, not destroy them.

If we rescind the loophole for banks, THERE WILL BE NO BANKS TO TAX IN WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!

Over the last few years, true loopholes have been examined and eliminated. The improper use of reseller certificates to get building materials tax free for personal use, and tax avoidance have both been thoughtfully – and rightfully – repealed.

It’s only a loophole if I don’t support it.

Proposals to end our current tax incentives are by definition tax increases. Voters clearly said ‘No!’ to that last fall, and with good reason. Any tax increase would lead to job losses in our state and further delay the rehiring of workers by any employer affected by such a tax increase.

Well to the extent that you can divine anything about closing loopholes from that, they said they wanted either 2/3 of the legislature to vote on it or to put it to the people. So, if enough of your colleagues support it, then it can pass. So vote to close loopholes and problem solved.

A repeal of these incentives would further hamper our economy’s recovery and devastate our state and household budgets. We need to get past the misleading rhetoric of impropriety and look for better ways to get our budget balanced and to get Washington working again.

By cutting Basic Health and education. QED!

[Read more…]

I linked to this story in last night’s post on Mexico, but what’s happening in Spokane is causing a lot head-scratching today:

Medical marijuana dispensaries in Spokane face federal prosecution if they do not end their operations immediately, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced Wednesday.

Federal authorities hope for voluntary compliance but are prepared “for quick and direct action against the operators of the stores,” according to a statement by Mike Ormsby, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Washington.

Federal authorities will target both the operators of the stores and the owners of the properties where the stores are located, he said.

The Obama Administration’s stated policy for states like Washington that have medical marijuana laws has been that U.S. Attorneys should only get involved in enforcing the federal marijuana prohibition if people aren’t following the state laws. So while Ormsby is technically following the directive, it’s the timing that’s curious. Our legislature is currently working to make the dispensaries legal, and Spokane isn’t the only city with dispensaries in limbo. In fact, most urban areas in Washington already have dispensaries that serve patients. So why Spokane? And why now?

What makes this even more curious is the fact that we have a looming government shutdown this week. And while much of the work of the Justice Department continues during a shutdown, those offices have to scale back their workload. In light of those circumstances, what in the hell was Ormsby thinking?

In Wisconsin, two of yesterday’s races were being touted as a referendum on Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) rather extremist anti-worker, anti-middle class agenda. Now it is mostly all over but for the recounts.

The second most important race is for Gov. Walker’s former position as Milwaukee County executive, a post he held from 2002 to 2010. The Republican candidate state Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale), who is portrayed in the liberal blogosphere as a Scott Walker clone. The opponent is philanthropist and political newcomer, Chris Abele (D).

The result? A +22% landslide for Abele:

Abele had 61% of the vote to 39% for Stone, according to unofficial results with all votes counted

The voters of Milwaukee county have spoken: “Walker clone sucks,” or maybe, “We don’t trust no Republicans no more,” or, perhaps, “We dislike Gov. Walker’s extremism and won’t elect his cronies.” It’s hard to adjudicate amongst these options without additional information.

The most important election is for state Supreme Court, where Justice David Prosser (the incumbent) is up against Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg. Kloppenburg is the liberal and Prosser is the semi-crazy conservative in this non-partisan race. Where’d I get the “semi-crazy” from? Well…let’s politely overlook the fact that Sarah Palin has endorsed him (perhaps against his will!). Let’s ask former Gov. Patrick Lucey (D) who, until early April, was the honorary co-chairman of Prosser’s campaign:

“I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman,” Lucey said in the statement. “I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser’s candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice — as for any judge — even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility.”

With no prior information we would might expect the incumbent to prevail.

The election is too close to call. The last numbers I could find have Prosser leading by 585 votes with 34 of 3,596 precincts left to report. As it happens most of the 34 precincts are from pro-Kloppenburg counties.

Starting with the table found here, I project (using ONLY the county-wide percentages and estimate of the number of votes remaining) that there will be 6,546 additional votes for Kloppenburg and 4,871 additional votes for Prosser. After we take into account Prosser’s 585 lead this evening, Kloppenburg should have a final lead of about 1,091 votes. The wrench in the calculations is that I have no idea how many absentee ballots and provisional ballots will be counted and how they will break.

The losing candidate will, no doubt, request a recount (which, under Wisconsin law is not automatic). My hunch is that the recount will favor Kloppenburg a bit (keep in mind what happened in Cantwell–Gorton, 2000; Gregoire–Rossi, 2004; Franken–Coleman, 2008). But watch out for those absentee ballots and provisional ballots…they add considerable uncertainty to any projections.

So, who really wins…Workers or Walker? Given the closeness of this race, it will be hard for either side to make too much over the eventual winner. That said, the expectation that a incumbent should win such a race means that a Kloppenburg win, and maybe even a very close loss, provides modest evidence that Wisconsin voters have joined with their Milwaukee county brethren to give Gov. Walker a collective thumbs down.

Update: With three precincts left to report, it looks like Kloppenburg will lead with about 260 votes. Wisconsin absentee voter law requires ballots to arrive by the 8 pm poll-closing time on election night. There is a limited postmark exception for some overseas military personnel, but the exception doesn’t apply to this election.

There should be a hand full of provisional ballots to count. This 2008 memo points out that provisional ballots must be “dealt with” by 4:00 pm today:

A provisional ballot is used when a person attempts to vote who is required to provide proof of residency but who does not have such proof with them. […]

The person is to be offered the opportunity to vote a provisional ballot and if they agree, are to be provided with envelope marked “ballot under s. 6.97 stats.” The person shall be required to sign written affirmation on envelope that they are qualified elector in that ward or district and is eligible to vote. The ballot shall be noted with “s. 6.97” and person’s name placed on separate list. The person then has until 4 pm the day after the election to provide identification in order for vote to be counted.

For the most part, individuals required to provide proof of residency are those who register to vote on election day. There won’t be many, and as a group they should be younger (new voters), more transient (new state residents), and angrier (formerly inactive) than the general population. I suspect the provisionals will add to Kloppenburg’s lead.

Update II: Now there is one outstanding precinct and Kloppenburg has a 224 vote lead. The remaining county, Jefferson, went for Prosser 58% to 42%. Hence, if the precinct follows the overall county proportions, and is an average sized precinct for the county, Kloppenburg’s lead should be about 139 votes!

Last night I told Goldy last night I wanted Kloppenburg to come out 129 votes ahead (remember 2004?)…I may well get my wish!

Update III: Hmmm…I’ve been using the AP for election results, and they still have one precinct to go in Jefferson county. So I go to the Jefferson county web site and find updated numbers. Assuming none of the other numbers have changed, Prosser gains 2 votes when that last precinct is tallied.

Update IV: The AP has finally gotten that last precinct nailed. Some other numbers have changed a bit, probably as provisional ballots are resolved before the 4:00 pm CDT deadline (2:00 pm PDT).

The current tally has Kloppenburg leading Prosser by 204 votes.

Canvassing must be complete and reported by April 15th. The recount request from Prosser will come a few days later.

Update V: Too funny! Via WisPolitics:

“You’ve got a world driven by Madison, and a world driven by everybody else out across the majority of the rest of the state of Wisconsin,” Walker said at a press conference in the Capitol.
[…]

“For those who believe it’s a referendum, while it might have a statewide impact that we may lean one way or the other, it’s largely driven by Madison, and to a lesser extent Milwaukee,” the governor said.

Here is a beautiful map. Gosh…Madison has sure grown since I’ve lived there….it’s, like, one quarter of the state now! And who knew it had that “suburb” way up north along Lake Superior?

Of course, Walker was elected County Executive in Milwaukee county just a few years ago. And yesterday the county went 61% to 39% in favor of Democrat Chris Abele for the same position. And Milwaukee county went 57% to 43% in favor of Kloppenburg over incumbent Justice Prosser. (Ten years ago Prosser ran unopposed, so we cannot fairly compare the past results.)

WordPress ate my last post so here’s an abbreviated version before I head out: Even though House Republicans hate Obama, and might well not pass an authorization of force against Libya, he shouldn’t have taken military action there without one. The War Powers Act is more wide ranging than I’d like, but it still probably doesn’t allow this. Also, even if he could get authorization, I’m not sure he should have anyway. I do think the humanitarian mission has value, but I don’t know what the US and its allies have done to prevent a bloodbath by the rebels if they take Tripoli, and I can’t imagine a partition (especially one enforced by Western air power) working out well in the long term. That said, this conservative anti war case is embarrassingly stupid, even by Federal Way Conservative’s low, low standards.

Bush’s Unilateral Action Had More Partner’s Than Obama’s Multinational Effort

The Libya mission has the UN, and NATO, and sort of the Arab League? Well Iraq had the UK, Spain for a while, and Poland.

It’s all here, in black and white: When President Bush went to war against Iraq, he had 4 times as many nations supporting him than Obama doing his “Kinetic Military Action” in Libya.

This isn’t an apples to apples comparison. The link includes military action by every country that just supplied a few troops in Iraq at any time in the last decade. So most of them came on (and in small numbers) after the invasion. You can’t compare that to just an air offensive. Hell, the fact that Eritrea said they supported the invasion to try to gain favor with the Bush administration made them part of the Coalition of the Willing. We had to put those together because the Iraq war didn’t have the backing of NATO, the UN or other international organizations that might give it international legitimacy.

Of course, now that Obama’s little crusade against Libya is turning out far worse than Bush’s romp in Iraq, maybe even democrats will admit Bush was the greatest president ever.

Did a we lose several thousand troops and billions of dollars in Libya? Because if not, it’s not as bad.

Republicans are having a hard time getting the nerve up to challenge President Obama:

“Right now, just three Republicans (Cain, Pawlenty, and Roemer) have formed exploratory committees, and no one has yet to formally announce a presidential bid. By comparison, at this point in the 2008 cycle, at least 17 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates had already formed their exploratory committees or had officially declared they were running for president…

Bloody wafflers!

Okay, so maybe the problem isn’t spineless waffling. Perhaps they are suffering an epidemic of reality, with advisors pointing out the hurdles: huge fundraising requirements, tough odds against Obama, and a very red G.O.P. primary (as in, a bloodbath). The entire picture might be overwhelming.

Whatever the cause, the lack of action is starting to mess things up. The first Republican primary debate for the 2012 presidential election cycle was supposed to be held on May 2. It isn’t going to happen and is being moved to mid-September.

My sense is that the compressed schedule will not work in the Republican’s favor. First, it will provide an expanded platform for the political nutjobs to launch quixotic campaigns. We have a growing list of crazies hinting at a run—including Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul…. And most recently, The Donald, has been working diligently to establish credentials as a bona fide birfer loon. The lack of a serious mainstream candidate can only embolden these people.

This cycle we will see the nutjobs soaking up a lot of press attention, later into the season, leaving a deficit of press attention for more mainstream candidates.

Another possible negative consequence is that whoever is eventually selected may not be fully vetted. Vetting takes time, and must encompass multiple dimensions—fundraising prowess, mistresses on the side, past indiscretions, pregnant unwed teenage daughters, gaffe proneness, lack of charisma, bouts of irrational decision making, lack of any coherent vision, etc.

In other words, the late start of the election season maximizes the opportunity for Republicans to end up with a flawed candidate. They did pretty well in that regard in 2008, even with a long, bruising election season. The first sign of McCain’s “gambling problem” became evident when he gave the G.O.P. establishment, including his former rivals, a great big “fuck you” and took a desperate gamble on an entirely un-vetted running-mate. The results weren’t pretty.

Man, what great material us bloggers got from it.

But more than I want good blogging material, I really do want a large field of serious, solid candidates from both sides, and plenty of time to evaluate them. I want this because, in principle, that is what is best for America.

In practice…I am not convinced that there is any Republican politician who is actually good for America.

Recently, my favorite sports writer, Joe Posnanski wrote a piece about the meanings of advanced baseball statistics. He started quoting this piece from Louis CK:

“And then I was looking at the little Chinese lady. There was a beauty to her — she was just a tiny little Chinese lady, I was staring at her because I was fascinated by her. I don’t know anybody like her, and I am SO not a little old Chinese lady.

“Then I look and I think, ‘What are her thoughts?’ That’s what I was burning inside with. ‘What is she thinking right now?’ I can never know. And my dumb brain is telling me she’s just thinking: ‘Ching chung cheeng, chung cheeng chaing.’ That’s how dumb I am, that I think Chinese jibberish* that I made up is in her actually Chinese mind.”

Posnanski then went on to explain that a lot of people who oppose the use of advanced statistics are arguing with the Chinese jibberish in their head.

Baseball people really don’t get at all what people like Bill James and Tom Tango and Pete Palmer and the like are doing at all. They might THINK they know. But in the end, they are just assuming that the Chinese jibberish that they make up is what is actually happening in the minds of the most brilliant sabermetric minds.

This is a long way of saying that whenever I mention car culture or Washington State imposing car culture on its city folk, that I feel like the arguments I get into are with people assuming the Chinese jibberish in their head is my argument. If this was confined to the Internet, I’d just chalk it up to trollery and use this post to write about something else (more metacommentary, probably), but I hear it in conversation elsewhere, so I thought I should clarify what I mean, and hopefully we can get away from that and onto an actual conversation.

To address the jibberish: Opposing car culture doesn’t mean that nobody will ever be allowed to drive anywhere. It doesn’t mean that we’ll turn all the roads into bike paths. It doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to drive. While I can’t speak to anyone else who uses the term, for me it certainly doesn’t mean I think you’re a bad person if you drive or if you enjoy driving. It doesn’t mean that you are a bad person for feeling unsafe on a bike, or thinking it’s important to have a car if you have children.

Car culture is the myriad ways we privilege driving over other ways to get around as a society. It’s the fact that you need a car for so many jobs, even jobs unrelated to driving. It’s the fact that our bicycle infrastructure even in Seattle is pretty inadequate, and worse further out. It’s the fact that so many parents have such a need for cars. It’s all the roads without a shoulder let alone a decent bike lane. It’s the sidewalks that neighborhoods have been promised for decades but that never quite seem to materialize. It’s the underfunded public transit. It’s the fact that when we discuss the viaduct replacement that many people are more concerned about how to move cars than how to move people. It’s our refusal to deal with the externalities of driving from pollution, to global warming gases, to the big holes in cities where we have to park, to the fact that streets aren’t safe for pedestrians in the way they were before cars.

And car culture is treating all these things as inevitable instead of the result of choices we make. When I say the legislature imposes car culture (especially, but not exclusively) on Seattle, I’m saying that consciously or not, the policies that the state pushes make those things in the above paragraph, and more, worse. So when, for example, a state legislator from Yakima tries to impose a maximum parking tax on Seattle that’s a choice for that legislator, and possibly the entire state. They’re saying we should have cheaper parking. Not we should figure out what’s reasonable given the budget deficit and the things that extra parking does to a city, but that they know best. When the legislature wants to build a replacement for the Viaduct, instead of looking at how to move people around, they’re looking at how to move cars. Until they recognize that cars are one way people and goods move around, but aren’t the only way, they’ll still push cars on us when there are better alternatives. Not just with the Viaduct replacement but with all sorts of policies.

[Read more…]

Another death in the hands of a domestic religious extremist:

A 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say. […]

Thomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman’s life, according to court documents.

Police say that Thomas struck Seidman in the head about 10 times with the sock of rocks. Thomas left Seidman dead in his apartment, and then threw his bloody clothing and the bloody sock in a dumpster, according to authorities.

…which leads me to ask, when, oh when, will Congress hold hearings on the radicalization of American Christians?

And when will our lawmakers take action against the gathering threat of honor killings via stoning (nip it in the bud, so to speak) by passing legislation forbidding the establishment of Mosaic law in Washington state?

(And rename Moses Lake to something less terroristic sounding, while they are at it?)

E.D. Kain is one of my favorite bloggers and someone who I respect for his ability to get beyond simple partisan talking points, but I think he’s in denial about this:

As far as I’m concerned there are no good arguments for intervention in Libya. Reports that we’ve saved 100,000 lives there strike me as no better than propaganda.

As soon as Libyans began gearing up for their February 17th protests (which were supposed to mimic the successful Egyptian protest movement), I began to follow the situation closely. It’s a country (and a regime) that I’ve been fascinated by since I became friends with a Libyan who was given asylum in the U.S. in the early 90s. To this day, I’ve never been able to get the whole story out of him on why he had to flee the country.

For a while, it did appear as if Libya would follow the script of both Egypt and Tunisia. Protesters took to the streets across the country and in many cities were able to raise the tri-colored flag of pre-Gaddafi Libya. At one point, only Tripoli, Sirte, and a few other tiny pockets of the country remained loyal to Gaddafi.

As in Egypt – and in Cairo in particular – this required that people “lose the fear”. In Benghazi, this happened, and while some troops stayed loyal to Gaddafi, many didn’t (they were found bound and burned alive). Fighter pilots that were sent to bomb the city flew to Malta and demanded asylum. Many other Libyan diplomats defected and joined the ranks of the protesters. Benghazi was able to overrun the few Gaddafi supporters left and raise the rebel flag. But in the capital, none of this happened.

When protests started to break out in Tripoli, Gaddafi had enough fighters (along with paid mercenaries from other countries) who began terrorizing the populace. They fired from tanks and aircraft into crowds of peaceful unarmed protesters. At this point, the internet was still available and people in Libya were posting pictures and videos of the truly gruesome carnage. And my friend (who was still in communication with his large family back in Tripoli) was still optimistic when I talked to him, but Gaddafi’s assaults on the populace brought the fear back in Tripoli and allowed for him to project to the world that he still had support in the capital.

It’s hard to really get into the mind of someone like Gaddafi, but it’s not hard to see that from his speeches that it matters to him deeply that he’s loved by his people. And here he was faced with his entire nation standing up and telling him to fuck off. It was very similar to Mubarak, but Gaddafi isn’t Mubarak. And the Libyan Army isn’t an institution capable of rejecting a diseased head of state bent on massacring his populace in order to project an image to the world that he’s beloved.

At this point, there was still hope that the protesters could arm themselves and take on Gaddafi’s loyalists and paid fighters, but that hope was dashed in a flurry of intense military retribution on the general public. Tens of thousands started to flee to the Tunisian border. Gaddafi then started consolidating his military assets to reclaim cities that had raised the rebel flag. He repeatedly attacked Zawia, just west of Tripoli, by shelling residential areas. After several days of fighting, Gaddafi achieved his objective, to be able to set a scene where western reporters could broadcast to the world a scene of pro-Gaddafi supporters waving green flags and holding up his picture. It’s nearly impossible to know how many people died in order to set up this photo op. As was the case throughout the battles in Libya, dead bodies were picked up from the streets and taken away by the military. Hospitals were attacked and ambulances were often hijacked.

In the east, Gaddafi forces were able to continue along the main highway between Tripoli and Benghazi. Having the ability to fire from the air made it impossible for the now-armed but largely untrained opposition to stop them, especially in sparsely populated areas where it’s tough to hide. There was nothing stopping the advance on Benghazi, the second largest city in the country – and the heart of the newly formed revolution government. It would’ve been enormously wishful thinking to say that we weren’t staring down the possibility of a massacre that could’ve taken 100,000 lives. The Obama Administration had the military means to prevent a significant loss of life. And if Obama had not acted to wipe out Gaddafi’s troops and they did in Benghazi what they did in Zawia, you can be sure as hell that everyone would lay the blame for that massacre at Obama’s feet.

I recognize that there are a number of good counter-points to our intervention in Libya, and I’m still worried as hell that this situation will continue to deteriorate, but any argument that tries to dismiss the idea that a huge massacre was about to occur in Benghazi is not dialed in to what was going on there. And ultimately why I fall into the camp of the interventionists here is along the same lines of why these uprisings have managed to be so successful to this point. The citizens of the world are far more aware of what happens outside of their communities than ever before. And while this phenomenon can lead to greater understanding of one’s own state of being oppressed (as we’re seeing throughout the Middle East), it can also lead to greater expectations for those world powers who have the means to intervene on behalf of those being most oppressed. Of course, it would be considerably better if the Obama Administration were a little more consistent on when we intervene (see: Ivory Coast). But I still believe standing alongside the Libyan people here was still the right move, even if the outcome isn’t as triumphant as we’d all hope for.

Under the guise of “budget crisis” measures, anti-worker legislation is popping up all over the country. But this mean-spirited move shows the arrogant contempt with which Republicans hold workers:

Gov. Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history from the lobby of the Department of Labor.
[…]

Acting labor chief Laura Boyett emailed staff Tuesday about the mural’s pending removal, as well as another administration directive to rename several department conference rooms that carry the names of pro-labor icons such as Cesar Chavez.

According to LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt, the administration felt the mural and the conference room monikers showed “one-sided decor” not in keeping with the department’s pro-business goals.

Umm… Removing a mural and renaming conference rooms is going to fix Maine’s budget problems?

Pure and simple…this is another salvo in the Republican War on Workers™.

The mural was erected in 2008 following a jury selection by the Maine Arts Commission and a $60,000 federal grant. Judy Taylor, the artist from Seal Cove, said Tuesday that her piece was never meant to be political, simply a depiction of Maine’s labor history.

Why are Republicans threatened by Maine’s history? Let’s examine the threat. From the web site of the artist, here is a selection of captions from the eleven mural panels:

1. The Apprentice: Here, a Cobbler trains his young Apprentice. In the background, are scenes from that era.

Oooooh…cobbler apprentice. Scary. (And, Donald Trump…this doesn’t look good for your presidential aspirations…)

2. Lost Childhood: Child labor was common in Maine. They frequently performed dangerous tasks for long hours.

That is offensive to LePage, who is trying to roll back child labor laws:

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Debra Plowman (R) and “backed by” LePage would roll back the state’s child labor laws…. Her original bill would have removed all protections on the number of hours 16 and 17 year olds could work during the school week, and allow them to work until 11 PM.
[…]

In response to opposition from labor and education groups, Plowman revised her bill to cap hours at 32 per week….

3. The Textile Workers: Young women were often sent to the mills by their families, who could not, or would not support them.

Clearly, this is offensive for the same reason as the previous panel. A young woman’s place is in the sweatshop.

4. The Secret Ballot: For the first time, workers were allowed to vote anonymously in 1891.

Yeah…Women’s suffrage still gets under their skin.

“Wait. What? Vote?!? We thought ‘suffrage’ meant something else.”

5. First Labor’s Day: In 1884, Maine celebrated it’s first “Labor’s Day”, a day for the workers to celebrate.

This factoid, no doubt, is a great stain on the psyche of Maine Republicans.

6. The Woods Workers: A member of the IWW or “Wobblies” tries to organize the Maine woodsmen.

History lesson be damned…I’m pretty sure Republicans consider the word “organize” a vulgar obscenity.

7. The 1937 Strike: Scenes from an unsuccessful strike attempt to create better conditions for women workers.

Ewwww…”strike”? “better conditions for women workers?” For the G.O.P., the vulgarity of it all must trump any potential historical interest.

8. Francis Perkins: FDR’s Labor Secretary, and untiring labor activist, a Maine Labor icon.

You can imagine how a mural of the first woman appointed to a Presidential Cabinet could induce in Republicans indigestion, foaming at the mouth, and the heartache of psoriasis.

9. Rosie the Riveter: Maine’s version of WWII women workers participated as ship-builders.

You see…in the eyes of the wingnuts, Rosie the Riveter is the kind of uncomfortable situation that leads to Rachael Maddow.

Hey…you know another leader who took down art that he found threatening?

Hitler.

Today is the one-year anniversary of the contentious health care reform law. How do American’s feel about it? The story you get depends on (1) your media source, and (2) how carefully you scrutinize the numbers.

David Weigel points out that the following two headlines are simultaneously true:

1. Most Favor Health Care Law or Wish It Was More Liberal
2. Time Doesn’t Change Views on Health Care Law

Headline 2 is from a CNN article about its new poll released today:

Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That’s basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.

But that is only half the story:

“In 2010, about a quarter of the health care bill’s opponents disliked the bill because it was not liberal enough – the same as today. That works out to 13 percent of all Americans who oppose the bill because it did not go far enough. Forty-three percent oppose it because it was too liberal.”

The final tally from the poll (pdf here) is that an estimated 50% of Americans want the law or a more comprehensive version of it, and 43% want the law gone. Seven percent have no opinion. The pattern is the same in three previous CNN polls taken over the last year—thirteen percent “disapprove” because the law doesn’t go far enough, and 37%-43% oppose the law as “too liberal”.

One must keep the “liberal 13%” in mind with looking at polls that do not distinguish between those who think the law doesn’t go far enough and those who think it goes too far. So when a Gallup poll with a somewhat different question reports that 46% find the law “a good thing” and 44% find it “a bad thing” (with 10% offering no opinion), I have to wonder what fraction of the 44% wanted universal health care, single payer, a public option, or just think the law is a big giveaway to the insurance companies.

Also, I have to wonder how much of the ~40% who oppose the law do so because they were sucked into the bullshit that it “includes death panels.”

Besides being the one year anniversary of the law, it is also the one year anniversary of the Republicans offering no alternatives. Even Juan Williams has a hard time not noticing:

…House Republicans have not passed a single alternative health care reform bill since they have been in charge but they have passed bills to repeal and defund the law. All of these bills, however, are dead on arrival in the Senate making the whole exercise futile and symbolic.

At a meeting of the nation’s governors last month, President Obama called the GOP’s bluff on health care. He challenged GOP governors […] to come up with their own health care plans that meet the goals of the Affordable Care Act.

He challenged the governors, saying, “I am not open to re-fighting the battles of the last two years, or undoing the progress that we’ve made. But I am willing to work with anyone — anybody in this room, Democrat or Republican, governors or member of Congress — to make this law even better; to make care even better; to make it more affordable and fix what needs fixing.”

That includes not driving up the deficit. So the president opened the door to the states, as what he called the laboratories of democracy, putting their own ideas on the table for reducing costs, increasing access and improving quality.

Since then, the silence has been deafening and the American people are beginning to see that the GOP really doesn’t have any alternative ideas on health care that fit the bill.

A shorter Juan Williams: Republicans…all Repeal an no Replace.

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller (D-23) makes the case for ending some of the 567 special tax preferences on the books in Washington:

Faced with a deep state deficit and deep cuts to vital services we should look first at ending unjustified tax breaks.

Many breaks on the books subsidize a privileged few at the expense of ordinary citizens. The notion of tax fairness, that everyone pays his or her fair share for core services that benefit everyone, has been trampled under the feet of special interest lobbyists.

These tax breaks are conveniently embedded in obscure tax law and routinely ignored, yet they divert billions of dollars into wealthy pockets. As a result, essential public services like education and health care are starved for funding.

Rockefeller admits that passage of I-1053 make the task more difficult. Given the widespread opinion that the 2/3 majority requirement of I-1053 would not pass Constitutional muster, if only we could get into the courts, why not use the budget crisis to force a showdown?

Here’s how it works. Declare that the projected revenue shortfall, following a biennium where spending has already been cut to the bone, makes it impossible for the legislature to pass a budget that lives up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

The constitutional requirement of “ample provision for education…” simply isn’t happening.

Article IX, Section 3 gives lawmakers broad authority to do what is needed to fund education. If we cannot provide “ample” funding for education via existing taxes, lawmakers should provide short-term revenue for education through the repeal of tax preferences, using a simple majority to pass the legislation.

The mandate and the authority to accomplish it as spelled out in the Constitution trumps a law enacted through the initiative process. If Republicans believe the law trumps…they can sue.

But would they sue? The reality is that I-1053 is most potent when it stays out of the courts. The threat to I-1053 is serious enough that, perhaps, a bill to repeal tax preferences might just get that 2/3 majority as a way to avoid Judicial scrutiny.

As a certain Mayor-elect puts it:

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”