Search Results for: ’

In a sales tax reliant state where we recently voted privatize and tax the poop out of liquor sales, there are high taxes on hard alcohol. This PI piece seems to forget that we just taxed ourselves, not as punishment to boozehounds, but to replace the revenue that privatization cost the state. You can get booze at your grocery store, but you have to pay higher taxes. It wasn’t a deal that I was comfortable with, but the voters went ahead with it. So, fine.

I would like a little more context than just complaining:

And, when it comes to increasing taxes to fund said government, it’s easier to get people to agree to a sin tax. You know, we’re supposed to feel bad about doing it and thus willing to punish ourselves: Bad drinker! Bad drinker! Barkeep – pour me another one! Also … add in the extra tax burden placed on booze for these first few years of privatization, and you have a recipe for a winning statistic.

There’s a reasonable debate to be had about the level of alcohol taxes we have. I’m just not sure this contributes to that.

Obviously, as the economy improves, stimulus that was designed to get us out of a caving, crashing recession will have to be scaled back. And of course the things that were set to expire are going to expire, especially with a House of Representatives dead set on anything decent for the Republic. So I guess nobody should be surprised that the expanded SNAP benefits are going to be back to what they were before the stimulus starting tomorrow.

Extra funding for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, one of the most impactful elements of the 2009 economic stimulus, expires Friday, meaning poor families in all 50 states will immediately see steep cuts in government food aid.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided a 13.6 percent funding increase to SNAP recipients beginning in April 2009, money the bill’s backers said would make its way quickly into the economy. But that extra funding ends Nov. 1. Every one of the 48 million SNAP recipients will see their benefits cut in their next checks.

Given the need, it seems early from a purely moral standpoint. The top earners are recovering nicely, and good for them and all, but the need for SNAP for people who aren’t earning that is still there.

SNAP benefits disproportionately help families with children. More than 21 million children — one in four children in the country today — live in households that participate in the program. More than two-thirds of the $5 billion the government saves will come from households that include children.

But instead of recognizing that the need is real, and that we should do more, we have a House of Representatives that last month voted for major cuts to the program. The GOP in the last election cycle ran candidate for President who doesn’t believe people are entitled to food, and they’re living up to that even though he lost.

– Happy Halloween

– Nevada Republican would allow slavery

– The Chamber of Commerce is the worst.

– One of the biggest challenges to gender parity in office is that women don’t run. According to a national study by the Center for American Women in Politics, women are much more likely to run if they’re recruited by others. Men don’t wait to be asked. (Trib link)

– I’m all for environmentalists working to make broad coalitions, but I’m not sure corporate interests and reactionaries will stop mocking them needlessly.

– Your guide to celebrating Dia de los Muertos

Representative Dan Kristiansen — who convinced a group of humans to elect him on multiple occasions and everything — has a post about a web poll he conducted earlier. My most fervent hope is that he finds a way to start it off that seems like it’s reaching too hard to have a catchy intro but ends up kind of creepy.

Last week, you allowed me into your homes and/or mobile devices to offer a short survey [the link to you’ve completed the survey is his — Carl] on a proposed transportation revenue package. The response was great and very informative for me. I wanted to share some of the results of this virtual listening tour. While the survey remains open and I will continue to request public input, below is an update on where results stand as of October 29.

So a few questions: “You allowed me into your homes and/or mobile devices,” huh? You’re going with that? What if people didn’t think they were letting him into their homes, but just taking a simple web survey? What if someone took it on a laptop but not at home? Does he need to specify and/or? Really wouldn’t “thanks for taking a minute to complete my survey, if you did” work just fine?

Also, “the results of this virtual listening tour” is an interesting way of saying “the results of a poll of people who were on a Republican’s email list and/or found their way to the state House GOP website.” Anyway, on to the results.

Would you be willing to pay 10 cents or more per gallon of gas to pay for transportation projects around the state?

• 13.4% Yes
• 85.6% No
• 1% I’m not sure

If you had to pay 10 cents or more per gallon of gas, how would this impact you financially?

• 7.7% It would have little to no impact on me financially
• 41.2% It would have a moderate impact on me financially, but I could probably afford it
• 51.1% It would have a negative impact on me financially and I cannot afford it

Gosh, it sounds like the people who answered this survey really are a representative sample… of the people who took the survey. Or maybe they’re demanding price controls on gas? That would be an interesting follow up question. To the extent that’s possible when you’re talking about the results of a web poll. Also, his district is pretty close to the I-5 bridge that collapsed. Maybe he could have asked a question about if that had more or less impact than a 10 cent a gallon tax increase. But I guess we’ll never know because we can only ever look at the cost of taxes, not the cost of losing what those taxes pay for. The closest we get is the next question:

If our state moves forward with a transportation revenue package, please rank what you think the funding priorities should be:

The numbers below are rating averages. The lower the number, the higher prioritization participants gave that particular issue. As you will see below, participants believe “Maintenance, including bridge and road preservation” should be the state’s top funding priority. And they believe that “More pedestrian and bicycle paths” should be the lowest priority of the six options.

• 1.55 Maintenance, including bridge and road preservation
• 2.24 New lanes for congested roadways
• 3.53 Large projects
• 4.08 Washington State Ferries
• 4.52 Transit agencies
• 5.08 More pedestrian and bicycle paths

Does he mean sidewalks instead of “pedestrian”? Just general pedestrian, like paying someone to walk more? Is it infrastructure, and/or paths, that pedestrians and bikes have to share?

Initiative 517 is the latest from Tim Eyman’s long line of mostly unsuccessful initiatives. I-517 would lengthen the signature gathering time for initiatives, would give signature gatherers intrusive access to the public, even on private property, and severely restrict free speech in the vicinity of signature gatherers. Essentially, it would make Mr. Eyman’s life a lot easier.

So howz it doin’? A new Moore poll finds:

With just over a week to go before the November 5th general election, Washington’s Initiative 517, which concerns the initiative and referendum process in the state, is opposed by a narrow margin. After hearing the ballot question, 33% of voters plan to or have already voted “yes,” while 40% plan to or have voted “no.” The remaining 27% are undecided or wouldn’t reveal their vote.

Importantly, intensity is stronger on the “no” side – among those who have yet to cast their ballots, 21% say they are a “definite” no vote, while only 11% are a definite “yes” vote.

It sounds bad for I-517. But as SeattlePI.com’s Joel Connelly cautions:

Eyman initiatives tend to run better AT the polls than in the polls. The results on election day have sometimes surprised those who have predicted his demise. And, win or lose, Eyman is usually back with more measures as soon as the votes have been counted.

Something else to consider is the sample size of this poll. Even though the poll (conducted from 23-24 Oct) sampled 500 people, only 365 expressed a Yes or No preference. This is a pretty small sample. Using only those 365 individuals, 200 who said, “No” and 165 who said “Yes”, I ran a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the probability that I-517 would win right now. From a million simulated elections, “Yes” won 94,839 and “No” won 898,738 times.

The analysis suggests that the initiative has only a 9.5% probability of winning. Here is the distribution of votes from the simulation:

Considering these “non-significant” statistical results (which are only based on the poll numbers) and Joel’s caution, I-517 opponents still have plenty of work to do; proponents still have a shot at changing the outcome.

The momentum is on the side of the opponents, however. The subsample of those polled who had already voted “Yes” or “No” on the initiative (104 people), I-517 was losing 37% “Yes” to 63% “No”. (Note that I’ve eliminated the “Don’t Know/Refused” category in those numbers.)

The trend in polling also suggests that I-517 is going down. An Elway poll, taken way back in early September, found 58% supporting and 22% opposed to the initiative. Another Elway poll from mid-October cut into the support with 52% supporting and 25% opposing the measure.

So, the most recent poll suggests a pretty impressive turn-around in support.

Since the passage of I-502, the state has been quiet about what they intend to do with the existing medical marijuana laws. Yesterday, that changed. Ben Livingston has the details:

This afternoon the state’s medical cannabis workgroup—comprised of the liquor board, health department, revenue department, and the governor’s office—released their formal recommendations, and they are just as drastic as we initially revealed.

The basic idea is that the voter-approved medical cannabis law would be mostly scrapped, and patients who are accepted into a proposed government registry would be allowed tax deductions exemptions on pot, which could only be purchased at I-502 stores. Among the recommendations:

1. Eliminate patient home growing rights
2. Eliminate collective gardens
3. Eliminate medical dispensaries that don’t comply with I-502
4. Eliminate the affirmative defense for pot patients
5. Create a state-funded patient registry program
6. Require health care professionals to register patients with the state
7. Forbid doctors from running a medical cannabis specific business
8. Remove the right to petition for new medical marijuana conditions
9. Reduce patient possession amounts from 24 ounces to 3 ounces
10. Allow I-502 stores to sell reduced-tax pot to registered patients

Not all of these proposals are bad, but on the whole, this is a big step backwards. We’re moving from a decade and a half of marijuana law reform that carved out exceptions in order to protect the sick and vulnerable to new system that eliminates those exceptions in order to protect government coffers. It’s exactly what the most cynical among us thought the state would do, and if they follow though, it’ll be inexcusable, lazy policy.

A big part of what drives this move is the fact that medical marijuana has been a poorly regulated mess in this state for much of the 15 years it’s been allowed. Dispensaries were never formally legalized, but entrepreneurs would continually come up with ways to stay just within the law. The lack of a registry system often left police and prosecutors frustrated at their inability to differentiate between valid medical users and regular recreational users. And it was always obvious that many people were getting medical authorizations who clearly didn’t have a medical need for the drug.

The state’s reaction to this mess appears to be, fuck it – just blow it up. But this is a mistake. Jonathan Martin at the Seattle Times has some good alternate suggestions for the state, especially this one:

It’s surprisingly hard to grow really good marijuana. Washington’s medical marijuana law recognized that from the beginning, allowing a caregiver to grow for a sick patients. The Legislature should absolutely preserve the ability for patients – real, legitimate patients – to grow their own, have a caregiver grow for them, or allow them to join 10-patient, 45-plant collective gardens. Any grow should be registered with the Department of Health, because police need to know if they’re walking into a legitimate or a black market grow.

This idea would be impossible under the rules proposed above. I think the lack of a home grow provision in I-502 was a mistake, but eliminating home grow even for patients is unthinkable. It certainly comes off as an attempt by the state to maximize tax revenue, rather than an attempt to protect public safety.

A lot of patients will bristle at the idea of having to register collective gardens, but it’s certainly preferable to having them banned. The current law is being blatantly abused in a way that almost no other state has seen. Dispensaries in this state aren’t legal. All those storefronts with green crosses everywhere are supposed to be limited to 10 patients. They get around that limit by constantly rotating who those 10 patients are as customers come in and out all day. Or by ignoring that requirement altogether.

One other requirement I’d add to this is that gardens shouldn’t be allowed to advertise or have storefronts. They should be private entities. Over time, perhaps in coordination with medical facilities, these gardens can work to develop very specific strains that work particularly well for certain ailments – and do so in a cost-efficient way.

People are concerned that the “medical excuse” patients will still find ways to avoid the high taxes of I-502 regulated stores. I’m not buying it. I suspect the vast majority of those folks will end up being unable to match the variety and quality of recreational pot sold in the regulated stores and be content to pay a little more for the privilege. But the regulated stores might not cater to folks with very specific ailments like epilepsy or MS, where the THC content might be too low to get people stoned. Those folks need to have the option to grow their own, or band together with others in a garden.

For years, we had a system that protected (well, tried to protect) medical marijuana users while recreational users continued to remain outside the law. What the state is proposing here could potentially turn that on its head – moving to a system that caters to recreational users while leaving those most in need with fewer options.

– The list of companies trying to make sure you don’t know what’s in your food is about what you’d expect but it’s good to have it confirmed.

– All-day training session for anti-KXL activists in Tacoma — Sat., Oct. 26

– I really like Dean Nielsen, but this is below the belt and he should apologize.

– There are those small town values that make people proud that they don’t have to lock their door at night… …and then there are those small town values that make a body wonder how anyone sleeps at night.

– The 26th District race between Democrat Nathan Schlicher and Republican challenger Jan Angel has already seen a combined spending of $1.9 million, with about half of that money being spent by third-party groups. (Tri-City Herald link to an AP story. Not sure if they have a cap on the number of articles)

– What the Fuck Should I Be For Halloween (h/t) Also, it knows me pretty well because it came up with a pun for me (lewd zeppelin, that I’m not doing but that I appreciate).

And even better news for same sex Oregon couples:

Gay couples are still legally banned from getting married in Oregon, but, effective immediately, their marriages will be recognized in the state if they choose to get hitched elsewhere in the country.

In an interesting half-step toward marriage equality, Oregon’s chief operating officer Michael Jordan issued a memo stating that all state agencies are required to recognize the unions of gay couples who wed outside the state.

“Oregon agencies must recognize all out-of-state marriages for the purposes of administering state programs,” reads the memo. “That includes legal, same sex marriages performed in other states and countries.”

It is welcome news even as it shows that there is more work to do. I suspect that it will be good for the wedding industry in Southern Washington and Northern California as couples come here to get legally hitched back home. I welcome the economic activity and the spread of love. And those of us who voted for marriage equality in Washington will have helped couples from the other side of the Columbia get married.

Still, for people in parts of Oregon that aren’t near the border, getting access to those rights might be tough. A couple farmers in Southeastern Oregon, or some college kids in Eugene who money is tight for might not be able make the trip.

I’m sure y’all are reading the NPI Advocate. When Andrew goes into live blogging mode or when he’s making fun of Tim Eyman it’s always solid. So as soon as I saw the title of this piece about Eyman speaking at the transit listening committee was of course going to be great.

“The people attending these meetings, including myself, are not a representative sample of the taxpayers of Washington,” Eyman said, instantly drawing another round of boos and jeers. “Normal people are at home recovering from a long day at work, but their voices deserve to be heard too,” he added.

“We’re normal people!” shouted several indignant audience members in a near simultaneous (but uncoordinated) reply. “I came here straight from work,” one young woman sitting near me said loudly.

People in the room were offended, and certainly they had every right to be.

Were I not an activist who has been watchdogging Tim Eyman and fighting his destructive initiatives for over a decade, I would have been offended too. I’d have resented Eyman’s sneering implication that I was not a “normal” person because I had chosen to give up part of my evening to share my opposition to Metro service cuts with the people charged with deciding what our laws and budget should be.

[…]

Eyman may not be normal – after all, he’s a well paid professional politician – but plenty of people who showed up at tonight’s hearing are regular Washingtonians who claim to represent nobody but themselves. They spoke as citizens and activists, not lobbyists or political operatives. Unlike Eyman, they don’t get paid big bucks to promote cynical initiatives designed to wreck government.

Just because Tim Eyman isn’t normal, he shouldn’t smear the rest of the people who show up on a Monday night to participate in the process. Usually in Olympia at hearings and committee meetings these sorts of things are overwhelmingly dominated by lobbyists and other people more like Tim Eyman who make their living taking one side or another. When they actually come to Seattle and other parts of the state, they can hear from a broader selection of people.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler and I don’t agree on much. But at least she can see the value of not shutting down the government over a law she doesn’t like (Seattle Times link). Eventually.

In a statement released Tuesday, Herrera Beutler said she’s avoided public comment before now because she wanted to give Republican leaders leeway to craft a deal.

But she said the time has come for Republicans “to face reality” and made it clear she will not vote for “poison pills” seeking to end the Affordable Care Act, which have no chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law.

Unlike Dave Reichert, who I complained about earlier, this seems legit. As we’re on the eve of a potential default, it seems like a praiseworthy thing. Especially since it’s a pretty conservative Republican who was first elected in the Tea Party wave (and who post-redistricting might be more likely to face a primary challenge than be defeated by a Democrat). So, I doubt I’ll make a habit of praising conservative Republicans in this state, but thanks Representative Herrera Buetler for recognizing reality.

The crisis continues…the federal government is still being held hostage, but that won’t keep us from plotting a rescue mission. Please join us for an evening of rescue politics over a pint at tonight’s gathering of the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

We meet tonight and every Tuesday evening at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Our normal starting time is 8:00pm.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out another nearby DL meeting over the next week. The Tri-Cities and Shelton chapters meet tonight. The Lakewood and South Seattle chapters meet this Wednesday. For Thursday, the Spokane and Tacoma chapters meet. And next Monday, the Aberdeen, Yakima and Olympia chapters meet.

With 210 chapters of Living Liberally, including eighteen in Washington state, four in Oregon, and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter meeting near you.

– How do you know when a Koch brothers sponsored group is lying in a press release? If it issued a press release.

– And the goddamned town full of righteous assholes who populate Maryville, Missouri joined up to recite the sacred mantra of “boys will be boys” and to condemn and harass the victims.

– Maybe not letting King County fund its own transit is a way to fund the 520 bridge since people are switching in large numbers due to the tolling.

– “As a matter of policy I always wait a few days before reading anything Alessandra Stanley writes so editors have time to issue the necessary 3-4 corrections. So I admit I’ve yet to read the piece.”

– This weekend’s weird protest against the fallout of the government shutdown they engineered is just the latest primal scream from this slowly dying breed of American.

– Three Olympia local food options that aren’t the co-op or the farmers market

– I always try to write a quick email when I’ve had good customer service (although in fairness, I’ve never been great at following through on it). Lately though, it’s been harder and harder to find a good email address. I feel like I’m being pushed to Twitter and Facebook, but those feel too public for that. Is it that putting those addresses somewhere where I can find it means that it’s also somewhere where billions of spam bots can find them too? Has anyone else had this problem, or is it just me?

– Ayn Random

– No, private charity can’t handle it alone

– Well it looks like our tattered campaign finance system will probably manage to get even weaker.

– Patty Murray’s guest editorial on the government shutdown (Seattle Times link).

– Did anyone watch the mayoral debate? I probably should have as a civics nerd who is undecided in that race and who likes both of the candidates. But I had other things to do.

– In yesterday’s post, I mentioned one King County Health Care event. You can find more here, if you want to go.

– The State Senate’s transit listening tour is coming to Seattle. The Transit Riders Union is pretty cynical about it, but encourage you to show up.

– Maybe those state senators are just running away from the bear in Olympia (Daily O link).

– RIP Comet Tavern

My questions in bold, Nick Licata’s after that:

1) Now that I-502 has passed, what should the purchase of marijuana look like within city limits? Will medical marijuana collective garden storefronts in Seattle have to abide by the 1000-foot rule established by I-502?

The State Liquor Control Board has allocated 21 retail licenses for recreational marijuana in Seattle, legalized by I-502, which I strongly supported. The stores will likely open during spring of 2014. More stores could open if demand is high enough.

I believe the state legislature needs to act to place medical marijuana within a clearer legal framework than its current “grey” status, a result of the partial Governor’s veto in 2011. The needs of medical patients must be met, and I’m not convinced the recreational market will meet that need. I’d like to see a medical license with clearer restrictions, and a reduced number of dispensaries. In any case, the US Attorney has stated that the current lack of regulations isn’t viable, and given the illegal status of marijuana at the US federal level, that is a caution we should heed.

I am co-sponsoring legislation that would require dispensaries or to be within commercial or industrial zones—more or less the same as retail stores for other legal products. It’s likely there will be a lot less dispensaries; the state could attempt to incorporate medical marijuana into the 502 system, though I’d prefer a separate, smaller regulated medical system.

2) With Metro’s ability to fund itself at the whim of the legislature, what should the city’s role be in public transportation? How should the City Council both make sure we get our fair share, and that the system serves the entire region well?

Ensuring our bus service is vital. The bus system is the best way to serve every neighborhood and business district; it should be our first public transportation priority. Should the state not grant King County authority to maintain funding for current service, the City may need to use its existing Transportation Benefit District authority to maintain service in Seattle via a ballot measure. Such a measure should be short-term only, for one or two years, and clearly state that once King County is able to collect funding via state authority, the City funding should stop. All neighborhoods and business district should have a good level of bus service before we consider building more streetcars. Light rail should be pursued within the regional context.

3) What should the waterfront look like after the Viaduct comes down? Will there be a streetcar or other transit?

A post-Viaduct waterfront should live up to the tag line planners currently employ, “A Waterfront for All,” in three crucial ways. First, it should provide free and easy access to Puget Sound in the form of beaches, open space and structures that directly abut the water. Second, it should offer a wide variety of free activities, such as music concerts, community festivals and other public gatherings that can attract a diverse audience of residents in addition to tourists. And last, it should contain surprises, such as artistically designed wayfinders at intersections, writers’ parks along the water that allow for reading, writing and contemplation, and integrated public art that amplifies the emotional, cultural and historic aspects of the waterfront.

I supported studying streetcars on the waterfront. The study is complete, and the estimated cost to place a streetcar on the waterfront is between $35 and $55 million. The decision to place a streetcar on the waterfront will have to take place within the overall spending plan for the waterfront.

4) What should happen in the next 4 years to make sure that police reform both satisfies the Feds, and works for Seattle citizens?

I support the City of Seattle’s policing reform objectives as follows:

• Prompt implementation of reform;
• Transparency;
• Alignment of the monitoring plan with the scope of the Settlement Agreement;
• Certainty that the monitoring plan follows the specific commitments of the Settlement Agreement; and
• Ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent to best further the speedy implementation of the Settlement Agreement.

We will best and most timely realize these objectives if we seek to uphold the spirit and the law of the Department of Justice’s Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding. They find that ongoing community input is a necessary and critical component of achieving and maintaining effective and constitutional policing.

The Community Police Commission is established to provide an independent forum for dialogue and widespread input on the reform efforts required by the Agreement/Memorandum. It is responsible to “leverage the ideas, talent, experience and expertise of the people of Seattle to support the City in ensuring that police services are delivered to the people of Seattle in a manner that:

1. Fully complies with the Constitution of the United States;
2. Effectively ensures public and officer safety; and
3. Promotes public confidence in SPD and its officers.”

The CPC should seek to strengthen the 3-legged table of our civilian policing oversight body. Each the civilian director, the civilian auditor, and the civilian oversight body have critical roles that make Seattle’s system – structurally – sound.

SPD rank and file will have to formulate new policy and cultivate a new policing culture. The City Council may have to pass new laws. The recommendations of the CPC will be a useful guide informed by their collective law enforcement expertise and community experience.

An emerging policy deliberation of significant reform potential relates to the Seattle Police Department’s proposed new Use of Force policies.

5) A recent study found Seattle is the worst of the 50 largest US metro areas in terms of pay equality for women. Why do you think that’s the case, and what is the city’s role in closing that gap?

An April report from the National Partnership for Women and Families (NWPF) ranked Seattle as having the widest gender wage gap among the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas.

On average in Seattle, a woman who holds a full-time job is paid $44,535 per year while a man who holds a full-time job is paid $60,881 per year. Women in the Seattle area are paid 73 cents for every dollar paid to men. Nationally, it’s women 77 cents for every dollar paid to men.

This means, for Seattle women, if the wage gap were eliminated for working Seattle area metro women would have enough money for approximately:

• 118 more weeks of food (2.3 years’ worth);
• Eight more months of mortgage and utilities payments; or
• 16 more months of rent.

The City of Seattle also has gender disparities in the payment of wages to its employees. Men employed by the City of Seattle make approximately 9.5% more than women on average.

I support the efforts of the Gender Equity in Pay Task Force to:

• Review City’s data to best understand opportunities and challenges, including a focus on departments with the largest differentials.
• Develop recruitment/retention strategies to increase employment of women.
• Develop strategies to increase City contracting and purchasing with WBEs.
• Develop policy that modifies existing procedures to address the bias that creates gender-based inequities.
• Develop tools and resources for individual women that help to address gender-based pay gaps.

– It looks like Ed Murray is proposing to go back to square one on the missing link (Seattle Times link). Boo.

-The people responsible for closing down the government sure don’t like that parts of the government are shut down.

– Guaranteed income seems like a solid idea.

– As you may know, the Sierra Club has been carrying on a big, and quite successful campaign all around the country opposing new coal power plants and lobbying to retire old ones – including the Colstrip plant in Montana, which supplies about 20% of the power to Puget Sound Energy Customers

– The New York Times had a piece on the government shutdown that included an in depth look at Lakewood.

– Hispanic and youth outreach? Pfft. Let’s turn the Tea Party up to eleven!!

– This is really what you think of women? That none play football in this country? That there aren’t women who recognize teams on tape and not paper? Do you live under a rock? Is it a big rock labeled “Sexist”?