Search Results for: ’

Nice catch by Niki Sullivan over at the TVW blog during testimony on SB 6035, which would reform the retrospective ratings plan system (the infamous “retro” money that BIAW uses as a slush fund to launch endless and usually untruthful attacks against Democrats.)

Rick D. (Didn’t catch his last name): “The Retro program is desperate for serious reform… this program is completely lacking in rigorous … accounting.” He said he participated in the BIAW Retro pool for some time. He would receive refunds, but never knew why or what it was based on. When he found out the BIAW was using some of the refund money to buy political ads, he protested. He says he was kicked out of the program for questioning it.

But it sounds like a couple of senators weren’t buying it so much:

Sen. Karen Keiser asked Rick if he ever received any safety information from his retro program. Yes, he said. He attended training that was “invaluable.”

Sen. Janea Holmquist said she was having a “hard time believing” that Rick didn’t know where the money was spent. She asked if he was on the board of the program. He said yes, for one meeting.

“I just want to highlight that this is a voluntary program,” Holmquist said. You belong to the Retro pool voluntarily and give them your money voluntarily.

Unless, of course, you say something the BIAW doesn’t like, then they kick you out.

It would be a shame if BIAW had to actually go out and solicit donations to fund its vicious campaigns. It’s pretty clear a lot of their own members don’t even like what they do.

Today Sullivan rounds up the proposed legislation here. Requiring an actuarial review and requiring refunds to members, less administrative costs, sounds pretty reasonable. But wait!

That’s the basic framework. But there’s more: During the 2008 campaign, the state Democratic party raised concerns about the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW, the largest retro program) using some of its retro refund for political activity — something that is not illegal. In the public hearing yesterday, some who testified in opposition to the bill said they thought it was an attempt to curb political speech. Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a sponsor, said the bill has nothing to do with that.

To back the train up to the starting point: most regular citizens would be beyond surprised to know that BIAW funds its political activities from rebates in a worker’s compensation fund. It’s downright sleazy and outrageous, and there’s no logical reason to allow the practice to continue, despite the whimpering from BIAW and others.

It’s a freaking insurance program administered by the state, for crying out loud, and protestations about free speech are more than a little ridiculous in that context. The state is under no obligation to enable BIAW or any other group to divert insurance funds towards politics.

Sure, BIAW will cry like stuck pigs about “retribution,” but who cares? Side with the little people for once, Democrats! All those small contractors deserve to get their money back, especially with the economy in the toilet, not pay for a bunch of horseshit right-wing television ads.

Via Slog…

The senate’s judiciary committee just voted seven to one for a bill that would provide legal immunity to those who call medics for someone overdosing on drugs. The bill is designed to encourage folks, who are afraid of getting busted, to call for help instead of abandoning an overdosing person to die. Drug overdoses killed 700 people in Washington in 2006. […] Only state senator Pam Roach (R-31) voted against the bill.

Which is ironic, considering that Roach is also the only state senator on the committee with a child who has been caught on videotape snorting oxycontin, and subsequently convicted on a felony drug offense.  Go figure.

It is a special evening for the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.

Tonight’s meeting will be held at Seattle’s Town Hall for a talk entitled “Barack Obama and the Challenge of the Bush Legacy” by Walter Williams (emeritus professor at the UW’s Center for American Politics and Public Policy) and Bryan D. Jones (professor at the University of Texas, Austin Department of Government). Start time is 7:30pm.

After the talk (around 9:00pm) the Drinking Liberally crowd will migrate to a (currently) undisclosed location for debriefing, drinks and discussion.

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for some 320 chapters of Drinking Liberally spread across the earth. There’s bound to be one near you.

Here’s an interesting article from Financial Week that suggests existing law would allow for a faster fix of the insolvent banking system:

The law, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act, was signed into law in 1991. In an interview with Financial Week, Bob Eisenbeis, a former research director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said the FDICIA contains more than enough tools for regulators to help stem the current financial crisis.

If regulators had applied FDICIA’s provisions once the solvency of major banks was first called into question, Mr. Eisenbeis said, many would already have been taken over by Uncle Sam.

That would mean that their good assets would have been separated from their bad and sold off to healthy institutions or other investors.

This, he claims, would have gone a long way toward solving the credit crisis.

The article quotes a blog post made by at The Big Picture by a financial consultant named Christopher Whalen:

“When the Q1 numbers for the financials come out, the children’s hour in DC will end,” Mr. Whalen wrote in a note posted on the blog, The Big Picture. “The markets will react and Washington will finally be forced to have an adult conversation with the global community as to how much we haircut the bondholders.”

Yes, reading and discussing economic and financial stuff gets old, but to regular citizens it sure appears we are still headed off a cliff in many ways. The stimulus plan is a start, of course, but fixing the financial system is now paramount.

If I understand all this, the argument is that the Paulson-Geithner approach has us in a holding pattern. If existing law can be applied as Eisenbeis claims, it would seem to warrant consideration so that we can get on with things. Whatever name people wish to use can be affixed to the action–temporary nationalization, receivership, or my personal suggestion of “restructuring awards,” we need to just do it. The longer uncertainty prevails, the worse things will get.

Props to The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter

Sam Quinones writes about Mexico in the Foreign Policy online magazine:

I’d recently lived in Mexico for a decade, but I’d never seen anything like this. I left in 2004—as it turned out, just a year before Mexico’s long-running trouble with drug gangs took a dark new turn for the worse. Monterrey was the safest region in the country when I lived there, thanks to its robust economy and the sturdy social control of an industrial elite.

…

That week in Monterrey, newspapers reported, Mexico clocked 167 drug-related murders. When I lived there, they didn’t have to measure murder by the week. There were only about a thousand drug-related killings annually. The Mexico I returned to in 2008 would end that year with a body count of more than 5,300 dead. That’s almost double the death toll from the year before—and more than all the U.S. troops killed in Iraq since that war began.

But it wasn’t just the amount of killing that shocked me. When I lived in Mexico, the occasional gang member would turn up executed, maybe with duct-taped hands, rolled in a carpet, and dropped in an alley. But Mexico’s newspapers itemized a different kind of slaughter last August: Twenty-four of the week’s 167 dead were cops, 21 were decapitated, and 30 showed signs of torture. Campesinos found a pile of 12 more headless bodies in the Yucatán. Four more decapitated corpses were found in Tijuana, the same city where barrels of acid containing human remains were later placed in front of a seafood restaurant. A couple of weeks later, someone threw two hand grenades into an Independence Day celebration in Morelia, killing eight and injuring dozens more. And at any time, you could find YouTube videos of Mexican gangs executing their rivals—an eerie reminder of, and possibly a lesson learned from, al Qaeda in Iraq.

Of course, when it comes to the traditional media’s coverage of the drug war, the devastation in Mexico isn’t as interesting as whether or not Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was going to arrest Michael Phelps.

A local pol, via email, rightly rants about our media’s googly-eyed infatuation with bipartisanship:

What the stupid media don’t realize is that it’s a tactic, not a goal. The goal is to get something accomplished. If that something requires bipartisanship to do it, so be it. If it doesn’t, who cares. They’ve made the classic mistake of not caring what the goal is, as long as it’s bipartisan. It’s not a surprising conclusion, really, as long as you frame in the media’s so-called “objectivity” frame. That frame forces themselves to gravitate to the holy grail of bipartisanship, because they are too lame to call some actual goals bullshit, or praise some as actually being worthy. Thus their choices comes down to partisan=bad, bi-partisan=good. No wonder why people have stopped reading their drivel.

And in my opinion, it’s even worse than that, because good or bad, the very notion of “bipartisanship” is usually as illusory as that whole “objectivity” crap.

For example… Obama goes to the Hill.  He meets with Republicans on their turf.  The Dems compromise, making the stimulus package smaller, less progressive, and less effective.  And then House Republicans still vote unanimously against it, including our own local, conscience-driven independent, Dave Reichert.  Bipartisanship my ass.

See, the problem is, even as a tactic, bipartisanship is pointless if not counterproductive if you don’t have an honest, trustworthy partner across the aisle.  And currently, the Dems don’t.

With rumors that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske is heading to D.C. to have his tax returns scrutinized, the podcast panel spends more than a little time on drugs, meandering around topics from the mean streets of Seattle, to the state’s top cash crop, to national enforcement policy.

Nibbling on some local issues, the podcast turns to mayoral runs, and Goldy extracts answers from his panel, including a Seattle City Council-member. One improbable “yes” emerges.

Back on drugs, the panel takes a swim in the latest pool of Reefer Madness. It seems Tony the Tiger has forsaken his munching minions. And A-Rod hits one out of the park with banned substances. Ironically, it takes a “stimulus package” to close out the podcast drug-free.

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Seattle City Council-member Tim Burgess, Effin’ Unsound’s and Horsesass’s Lee, and founder of Headzup.tv, John Shay.

The show is 40:58, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_feb_10_2009.mp3]

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

At The Plum Line, Greg Sargent takes a whack at explaining the blogger term “The Villagers.” After tracing its roots back to the Lewinsky scandal and a 1998 Sally Quinn article, Sargent delivers a cogent definition of the political mindset of The Villagers:

In political terms, the term “Villagers” denotes a kind of small-minded refusal to think outside an “acceptable” center-right consensus, and a refusal to acknowledge it when a majority of the American people take a view on a particular issue that is not in line with that center-right consensus. Thus, the “Villagers” include, in part, Democratic elected officials and consultants who insist that their party can’t succeed unless they ally their party with that center-right consensus; think-tankers who churn out position papers designed to prop up this elite consensus view; and elite pundits who insist that mainstream liberal views are radically leftist and insist on “bipartisanship” for its own sake, damn the consequences.

This elite consensus, in the view of the bloggers, represents this particular Village’s hidebound small-town values, which must be maintained at all costs to protect this elite’s status and interests.

And of course there is also The Iron Law Of Institutions, as set forth by Jonathan Schwarz in 2005. Consider the two terms and you have a basic understanding of why the Senate may struggle today to reach 60 votes instead of passing the damn stimulus bill 100-0.

It’s better to be in charge of smoking rubble than to not be in charge.

The podcast returns to the Montlake Alehouse after a long winter vacation. And just in time for Goldy and friends to offer fond farewells to King County Executive Ron Sims who is on his way to the other Washington. His former spokesperson, Sandeep Kaushik, offers insight into Sims as number two at HUD.

The Seattle P-I is up for sale with an uncertain fate. A recent analysis puts the PI in the top 20 for online readership nationally. Will a robust on-line P-I arise from the ashes of the printed product? The panel reflects more generally on the fate of print media and online journalism. Can an online publication support strong local reporting and in-depth investigative journalism?

The panel notices a new administration in D.C. With Change™ come appointments, replacements, and confirmation votes. The panel chews over and through the issues…right down to local repercussions.

Finally, it was election night in King County. With the first ballot drop, the faceless technocrat holds a strong lead over the crazy gun nut and the black belt mother-beater. Apparently the voters prefer professional competence in an Elections Director. And Goldy proclaims this the closing chapter of the 2004 election saga.

Goldy was joined by a reluctant Sandeep Kaushik of PubliCola, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Effin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and Peace Tree Farm’s N in Seattle.

The show is 47:08, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_feb_3_2009.mp3]

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

It’s long been in vogue amongst Seattle’s politiscenti to complain about Rep. Jim McDermott’s lack of effectiveness and leadership in Congress.

Of course, what they really mean is that McDermott doesn’t bring home the bacon, and he’s never much bothered to use his safe seat and affluent Seattle district to raise—and spread around—the kinda money generally necessary to climb up the ranks of the party leadership.  No, McDermott often marches to the beat of his own drummer, and he’s certainly no Norm Dicks or Patty Murray when it comes to playing the influence game.

But lack of effectiveness and leadership?  I don’t think so.  And apparently, neither do his colleagues in the House, who have rewarded his tireless work on behalf of expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by giving him the honor of managing the floor time today during final passage of the bill, and who have asked him to attend the signing ceremony with President Obama later this afternoon at the White House.

Beholden to no one but his own conscience and that of his overwhelmingly liberal constituency, McDermott has provided plenty of leadership on a number of issues, often with little regard for the likelihood of public approbation or short term success.  It was McDermott who famously invited national scorn on himself by going to Baghdad in the days prior to the US invasion to argue against the lies of the Bush administration, and it was McDermott who was ultimately proven right about the facts on the ground and the war’s disastrous cost in blood, treasure and prestige.

And it is McDermott who has qixotically fought for universal health care even as the Republican tide made such reforms an impossible dream.

Well… as today’s passage of SCHIP will show, that tide has finally turned.

At the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer, I asked the 72-year-old McDermott about persistent rumors (and wishful thinking amongst the many local Dems who covet his job) that this might be his last term in office, and he laughed off the suggestion, telling me that he intends to stay in Congress at least until he sees a major health care reform package signed by the President.  It may not be the single payer system that he prefers, but considering where the other Washington has been on this issue for much of his tenure, any reform that leads us down the slippery path toward universal access would be a huge accomplishment, and a giant cherry on top of McDermott’s long political career.

So those of you ambitious pols eagerly waiting for McDermott to step out of your way (and you know who you are), you better cross your fingers and wish Jim Godspeed on his final challenge.

UPDATE:
Rep. McDermott has issued the following statement on SCHIP:

“We speak for the children who are the most vulnerable in our society, especially during this time of economic crisis.  I cannot imagine how anyone could vote against America’s children.  Approving SCHIP is the most humane thing to do and I mean that in the truest sense of the word.  Yet, some on the other side will vote against it claiming they are fiscal conservatives; please note these very same so-called fiscal conservatives squandered a trillion dollars on a needless war in Iraq, and drove the U.S. economy into a ditch.  And now they want to deny children the ability to go see a doctor when they are sick.”

The voter-approved Death with Dignity Act takes effect on March 4. Robb Miller of Compassion & Choices of Washington writes in the Bellingham Herald about the kinds of questions that patients should be asking their care providers now if they are considering using this new law.

The University of Washington and Harborview Medical Centers have already decided to participate in the program, but other care facilities around the state likely won’t. Either way, I’m optimistic that Washington will experience the same improvements in terminal care that Oregon has had. As Robb writes:

The act’s benefits will extend well beyond the terminally ill. In Oregon, the law spurred conversation, education and improvements in end-of-life care across the board. Oregon experienced dramatic increases in those who died at home rather than in hospitals — something almost all of us prefer. More patients were referred to, and entered, hospice care, and did so earlier, receiving benefits that are helpful to all facing the end of life. Better use of pain medication resulted from more open and frequent conversations with physicians about end-of-life care.

This is one benefit of allowing the choice of death with dignity that I didn’t touch on much during the campaign. For organizations that oppose this choice for moral or other ethical reasons, they’ll be motivated by seeing their patients going elsewhere to choose this option to focus more energy towards improving end-of-life care.

No one intends to force physicians or care organizations to participate in this program, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t benefit from it. Giving people greater choice over their own medical decisions ultimately forces all health care providers to get better.

Not a surprise, but The Columbian confirms that some people got telephone calls warning them to take their money out of the about-to-fail Bank of Clark County, and some didn’t. And it’s legal!

Insider calling did occur. According to one contractor with $500,000 on deposit at the bank, he was alerted by a telephone tipster to get his money out of the bank two days in advance of the Jan. 16 closure. “Thank God,” he said, “or I wouldn’t now be in business.”

According to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. documents, customers pulled an estimated $28 million out of Bank of Clark County as word got around that the bank was circling the drain.

Others weren’t so lucky to get the advance notice.

At least one retired senior is wondering when or if she will get back $160,000 in uninsured deposits with the bank.

So the bidness guys and gals made sure their buddies were warned. The hoi polloi who had deposits over the insurance limit, well, we’re sorry.

Let me emphasize that, according to The Columbian, this was all legal. Apparently bankers can go around tipping off their friends, no problem. Neat system we have.

And politicians wonder why people get up in arms. Maybe someone at that big domed thing in Olympia would like to look into all this? I know life isn’t always fair, but little old ladies losing their money while contractors get theirs just doesn’t seem right.

Word is, the Blethens have enough cash on hand to keep the Seattle Times operating through at least March, but they’ll reach a major decision point by May:

While a bankruptcy filing is not imminent, if things play out as expected (no last minute reprieve for the P-I, no big concessions from the Times’ unions), Times executives believe a Chapter 11 filing is more likely than not. Such a filing would not necessarily mean the paper is doomed; rather, a Chapter 11 reorganization would buy the paper time, allowing it to continue publishing as it restructured its operations, figured out a way to pay off its debt, and renegotiated its contracts in an effort to make the paper viable when the local economy recovers.

In other words, the Times will use bankruptcy as an opportunity to break the unions.

More from Publicola’s News Junkie.

Click for Part 5

“It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.” – Thomas Jefferson

Last summer, Prince George County Police in Maryland intercepted a package containing 32 pounds of marijuana that was addressed to a local woman. On July 29, undercover police officers went to the residence as part of a SWAT team to deliver the package. An older woman first came to the door and told them to leave it on the porch. Soon after, a middle-aged man who’d been walking his dogs picked up the box and put it inside.

With that, the police made their move. They invaded the home, quickly shooting a potentially dangerous dog, then another. They kept the suspects cuffed until they had enough time to search the home for evidence. Eventually, the police left without being able to make any arrests. Why? Because the person whose home had been invaded was Cheye Calvo, the mayor of the town of Berwyn Heights. He and his family were completely innocent of any crimes.

[Read more…]

If you haven’t seen it yet, check out Brian’s post on the new domestic partnership legislation wending its way through Olympia.  (It’s the kinda thorough, original reporting I’m told you’re not supposed to be able to find on the blogs… and that you’re seeing less and less of in the dailies.)

The bill would add over 300 rights and obligations to domestic partnerships, essentially marriage equality in everything by name, at least under Washington state law.  (Federal law would still have to change to allow for true marriage equality, whatever we call it.)  But as Brian points out, the big story here is how noncontroversial this issue has become:

Those blatant displays of humanity aside, [Sen. Ed] Murray commented that one of the aspects most worthy of celebration with the announcement of these bills was the relative lack of fanfare from the other side.

“I would say the most remarkable thing about this bill is that it is unremarkable,” Murray mentioned, explaining that many of the fiercely fought battles that had been fought in the last few decades were inconspicuously absent from today’s atmosphere, even resulting in the aforementioned Republican sponsors of the House bill.

It took decades of bitter political fighting simply to make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference (yup, up until a couple years ago, it was perfectly legal to deny somebody a job, a loan, housing or insurance, simply because you thought they might be a little faggy), and now it looks like almost marriage equality is going to sail through the legislature with nary a fight.

Part of this has to do with the Democrats’ near super-majority in both houses, but a lot of it has to do with growing public acceptance of same sex couples.  Hmm.  I guess the rabid opponents of the anti-discrimination laws were right—it is a slippery slope after all.

A slippery slope toward greater freedom and equality, that is.