Search Results for: ’

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is facing re-election and a new Elway poll takes the pulse of the electorate. Josh at Publicola writes.

First the bad news for U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, who’s up for reelection next year: A new Elway poll finds her “Job Performance” rating at 52 percent “negative” to 42 percent “positive.” (It was nearly the exact opposite in 2005, also a year out from reelection, when her numbers were 52 positive vs. 38 negative.)

The good news?

The GOP doesn’t have any promising challengers. In Elway’s imaginary open primary against a batch of Republicans including: U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert; former KIRO TV anchor Susan Hutchison; Tea Party activist Clint Didier; and Port Commissioner Bill Bryant—Cantwell wins big with 47 percent of the vote.

And that pretty much guarantees Cantwell a spot on the November ballot.

You may recall that Cantwell beat Mike McGavick 56.9% to 39.9% in 2006. Clearly, she can do a lot worse in 2012 and still come out on top. And as flawed as McGavick was, it is not clear that the Republicans have anyone better in the wings. Let’s explore some other polling results for Cantwell in order to better frame the Elway poll.

Survey USA has collected a series of polls from May 2005 until the last poll taken from 16-18 April 2011:

On May 10 of 2005, the first poll on the graph, Cantwell had an approval of 45% and a disapproval of 35%. The most recent poll has her at 49% approval to 40% disapproval. The spread is about the same, but her approval and disapproval are higher in the recent poll because there are fewer undecided folks now.

Clearly, after that May 2005 poll, Cantwell’s approval increased dramatically and stayed relatively high until the Summer of 2009. Since then Cantwell’s approval has been more volatile. Six of the last 20 polls since then show her with higher disapproval, but with an overall trend of a higher approval. And given the absence of a strong opponent on the horizon, I am simply unwilling to fret over a single Elway Poll….

Fifteen State House Representatives, led by Roger Goodman, have sent Attorney General Rob McKenna a letter asking him to weigh in with his opinion on the recent furor over Governor Gregoire’s partial veto of the medical marijuana bill. The legislators would like to know McKenna’s official opinion on the following three things:

1) Where the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits state activities that create a “positive conflict” between state and federal laws (see 21 U.S.C. Section 903), would the exercise of our state’s (and its instrumentalities’) regulatory, licensing and zoning powers related to cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensing, as set forth in SB 5073, create a “positive conflict” with federal law, even where no state employee would be required to engage in specific activities that are prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act?

2) What is the likelihood, in consideration of current federal policy respecting individuals whose actions are “in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws,” (see so-called “Holder Memorandum” of 10/29/09) that Washington state employees would be subject to federal criminal liability for activities to implement the cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensing system as set forth in SB 5073, where no such comparable federal criminal liability has ever been attached to any state employees in the past and where state employees’ activities in this case would fall far short of “aiding and abetting” the violation of federal law?

3) How enforceable is Washington’s medical cannabis law in general and what is the permissible extent of Washington’ police power to protect the health, welfare and safety of the people in the face of the absolute federal prohibition of cannabis?

The first two parts of this letter focus on the main excuse Governor Gregoire has used to justify her partial veto. She continues to claim – despite UW law professor Hugh Spitzer’s dismissals – that state employees are at risk of arrest for regulating the industry.

It’s been brought up several times that other states regulate marijuana production distribution without any problem. This is far from secret. In fact, in a recent episode of CNBC’s “Marijuana Inc” series, you can see one of those state employees at work. Go to the 10:30 mark of the following video to see a Colorado state employee – a former narcotics officer, no less – doing exactly what Christine Gregoire says her state employees will get arrested if they do.

In response to the growing awareness that Gregoire’s stated reasons for the partial veto are fiction, she’s now claiming that the policy under Obama has changed recently. But as Dominic Holden points out, Western Washington’s U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan disputes that. The Obama Administration won’t go after folks who are in compliance with state law. Goodman’s letter to McKenna is an attempt to have the Attorney General weigh in to provide some clarity in this mess.

UPDATE: Dominic Holden has more analysis at Slog.

Juan Cole has a tremendous post on the life and death of Osama Bin Laden, and how we can use his death as way to continue to make progress against Middle East extremism:

The Arab Spring has demonstrated that the Arab masses yearn for liberty, not thuggish repression, for life, not death and destruction, for parliamentary democracy, not theocratic dictatorship. Bin Laden was already a dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War and the age of dictators in which a dissident such as he had no place in society and was shunted off to distant, frontier killing fields. The new generation of young Arabs in Egypt and Tunisia has a shot at a decent life. Obama has put the US on the right side of history in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Libya (where I see crowds for the first time in my life waving American flags). People might want a little help from a distance, but they don’t want to see Western troops deployed in fighting units on their soil.

If Obama can get us out of Iraq, and if he can use his good offices to keep the pressure on the Egyptian military to lighten up, and if he can support the likely UN declaration of a Palestinian state in September, the US will be in the most favorable position in the Arab world it has had since 1956. And he would go down in history as one of the great presidents. If he tries to stay in Iraq and he takes a stand against Palestine, he risks provoking further anti-American violence. He can be not just the president who killed Bin Laden, but the president who killed the pretexts for radical violence against the US. He can promote the waving of the American flag in major Arab cities. And that would be a defeat and humiliation for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda more profound than any they could have dreamed.

UPDATE: And on a less serious note, this Washington man finally shaved his beard.

UPDATE 2 [Darryl]: The White House releases some photos of the day’s events from within the White House.

Still waiting for President Obama to speak, but sources tell me that the CIA tracked down Osama bin Laden’s location via his iPhone. Happy “Spring Offensive,” Taliban!

Consider this a Dance on bin Laden’s Grave open thread.

UPDATE:
Not a Predator attack, not renal failure, but a US Special Operations mission (Navy Seals), eight months in the making. Meanwhile, let’s all take a moment to remember the immortal words of former President George W. Bush:

“So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
— 03/13/2002

The top-dog Carnival Barker has a little memory problem (via The Smoking Gun):

Despite Donald Trump’s claim this week that he avoided serving in the Vietnam War solely due to a high draft number, Selective Service records show that the purported presidential aspirant actually received a series of student deferments while in college and then topped those off with a medical deferment after graduation that helped spare him from fighting for his country, The Smoking Gun has learned.

And after boasting about his unforgettable memory of the period…

“I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number. I’ll never forget, that was an amazing period of time in my life.”

He went on to recall, “I was going to the Wharton School of Finance, and I was watching as they did the draft numbers and I got a very, very high number and those numbers never got up to.” The word “deferment” was not mentioned by Trump during his chat with the morning show hosts on WNYW, the Fox affiliate in New York City.

…he got it wrong…. Way wrong.

In fact, the December 1969 draft lottery occurred about 18 months after Trump graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied business at the Wharton School.

The story of Trump’s numerous deferments is interesting, particularly since he has, apparently, forgotten about them entirely when pressed on his lack of military service. It is his final deferment, disqualification after a medical examination, that caught my attention:

October 15, his classification was switched to 1-Y, which was given to men deemed qualified for military service “only in time of national emergency.”

The 1-Y classification came a month after Trump underwent an “Armed Forces Physical Examination,” according to Selective Service records, which note the results of the exam as “DISQ.”

Here is the extract of Trump’s Selective Classification record provided to The Smoking Gun following their TSG records request (click for larger image):

What caught my attention was the line labeled “Entries from Remarks Column” that says, simply, “YXX”.

Huh? Would that be YXX as in one extra X chromosome? The condition, called Klinefelter syndrome, is not uncommon–it occurs in somewhere from 0.1% to 0.2% of males. Aside from having an extra X chromosome, these are symptoms of Klinefelter syndrome:

• Abnormal body proportions (long legs, short trunk, shoulder equal to hip size)
• Abnormally large breasts (gynecomastia)
• Infertility
• Sexual problems
• Less than normal amount of pubic, armpit, and facial hair
• Small, firm testicles
• Tall height

Hmmm….

Among other things, the syndrome increases ones risk of attention deficient hyperactivity disorder, autoimmune disorders, depression, and learning disabilities (including dyslexia).

Hmmm….

So, while I cannot be certain the “YXX” note really means Trump was disqualified because he suffers a chromosomal disorder, it would explain the medical disqualification. And his lousy memory!

And the only way to know for sure is for Trump to—you got it—release his medical records. Otherwise, we will never know whether the Republican’s latest star candidate has a chromosomal disease….

– Oh my:

Pajamas Media’s resident fashion-plate and bow-tie adorned dildo brings us his latest installment in the wingnut myth that Obama Is a Muslim intent on imposing sharia law in the United States. Kimball’s editors — no doubt concerned that the typical Pajamas Media lip-moving reader rarely makes it past the headline — pack everything into the post title: “Why It’s OK for the U.S. Govt. to Burn Bibles But Condemn Burning the Koran.”

– The tunnel is a stupid project (also Pete Holems is a coward).

– Procession of the species!

– What Booman said.

Update [Darryl]

– I was going to write about Rick Perlstein’s feature in this month’s Mother Jones titled “Inside the GOP’s Fact-Free Nation. From Nixon’s plumbers to James O’Keefe’s video smears: How political lying became normal”, but will offer it as a link here instead. The article is an interesting history of the modern political lie in American politics.

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.