Search Results for: ’

My questions in bold; Sarajane Siegfriedt’s as is.

1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?

Obviously, the state is not living up to its paramount duty. The judge in the McCleary case made this crystal clear, as did another judge in a similar case in the 70s. “Paramount duty” is most often interpreted as 50% of the state budget. We are currently devoting only about 42% of the $32 billion budget to Basic Education. (Basic Education was expanded by the legislature in the 2011 session.) We are $4 billion short. The “down payment” of $1 billion for K-12 Basic Education is due in the 2013-2015 biennial budget. We have to make up another $3 billion by 2018. As the Governor said and as both candidates for Governor failed to grasp, we have to raise taxes to pay for this.

2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?

I am not the only candidate or legislator who will refuse to vote to raise the sales tax. For a decade, I have long fought for social and economic justice as part of the Poverty Action Network. Three years ago, I joined with Fuse, the WA Budget & Policy Center and many others as the Our Economic Future Coalition to propose progressive plans to increase revenue. I support a capital gains tax, which falls on the top 3% and exempts sale of a primary residence. It’s time to revisit the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. It’s been 10 years since Eyman’s initiative eliminated it, economic times have changed, huge budget cuts have been made and transit and ferries have suffered without the tax. The MVET is inherently a progressive tax. We also need a per-barrel tax on oil. The 60% tuition increases at our colleges and universities since 2009 constitute one of the worst taxes on the poor (especially community college and voc/tech) and they need to be reversed. This is a wealthy state, but our tax system doesn’t reflect that fact. Wealthy individuals and corporations need to pay their fair share.

3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?

I disagree with your premise. I believe we will be able to pass more progressive taxes for several reasons. One reason is that the challenge to Eyman’s I-1053 was ruled unconstitutional. I believe the Supreme Court will sustain this ruling before the beginning of the 2013 session. I believe the Democrats will retain a working majority in both houses, based in part on Obama’s popularity and the presence of the marijuana and equal marriage initiatives on the ballot. Second, education is widely supported by both parties and we have the McCleary ruling, which makes raising taxes imperative under any governor. Third, we have a bipartisan legislative task force that must come up with a plan to raise $1 billion for Basic Ed before the session starts—or else. Fourth, we have the House Democratic Caucus coming up with their own progressive plan to raise revenue. Fifth, we are far more likely now than in prior years to reform the system of tax exemptions, because the Grover Norquist pledge was broken by the Republicans last session when they sponsored and voted to repeal the Wall Street Bank tax exemption. There are 570 tax exemptions that lack a statement of legislative intent. This will change, and measurable outcomes for tax exemptions will be demanded.

4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?

I’m the only candidate endorsed by the 46th District Democrats, the King County Democrats, and Rep. Phyllis Kenney, whom I hope to succeed. I have a record of fighting for social and economic justice on state issues. I have been focused on Olympia since I lobbied there for alcohol and drug treatment fulltime in the 2002 session. Afterward, I joined several boards, including Solid Ground, one of the largest social service agencies in King County. We recently produced 50 units of low-income family housing at Sand Point, with 50 more on the way. I am the only candidate who has been involved with the Democratic Party. Since 2004, my involvement has been with issues, writing platforms and more recently as Legislative Action Chair of the King County Democrats—their volunteer lobbyist, if you will. The job includes working with labor and all the major progressive coalitions and with legislators to form a consolidated legislative agenda. I track bills, send out legislative alerts and organize a lobby day. More than anything else, this position has given me the breadth of experience to make informed decisions on priority legislation in Olympia. Our number one priority has been progressive revenue reform, in order to pay for everything else, including education, the safety net, housing and the environment.

I have lived in the 46th District for the past 15 years, in Lake City. I’m involved in my district, with issues of homelessness and plans for transit-oriented pedestrian-friendly mixed-income communities at Lake City and at Northgate. I’m also the only candidate with an appointive public board position. I serve on the King County Board of Equalization, hearing appeals of property tax assessments. I’m the only candidate with an MBA and with a background in business. I’ve worked for AT&T and for Boeing (for seven years). I combine private sector and non-profit management experience with public service and extensive knowledge of state issues.

5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?

How can we argue that wealthy individuals and corporations should pay their fair share, meaning they pay more than they get back, when we don’t expect the wealthiest county in the state to do the same? There are several counties that cannot perform the basic functions of county government, as required by law, without substantial state assistance. Does that mean the other counties should have fewer requirements?

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. I will fight for my district to get its fair share of transportation funds to maintain State Road 522, otherwise known as Lake City Way/Bothell Way, because it is a state highway carrying far more heavy truck traffic than before tolling began on the 520 bridge. The town of Kenmore, with 22,000 residents, is being forced to pay $68 million in road repairs on its “main street” that should be the state’s responsibility. The state is paying for the 520 bridge and most of the Hwy. 99 tunnel. When it comes to funding education and social services, two of the state’s top responsibilities, why is it inherently better or worse to fund a teacher or a foster children’s case manager in Seattle or in Yakima? In the end we must trust these state departments to allocate their funds on the basis of need, not silos or fiefdoms. (Trust, then audit?) Perhaps the founders of Kentucky and Massachusetts got it right when they named them “commonwealths,” not states. The name emphasizes an idea that has been neglected. We are all in this together.

This piece by Josh Feit about Patty Murray not wanting Super PAC’s in the 1st District race is basically fine. I don’t like Super PAC’s in general, but as long as they exist, I don’t mind them in primaries. But this struck me as particularly odd.

It’s grating enough when Democrats protest finance rules they object to by prescribing a holier than thou approach. Until you can actually reform finance rules, snooty protests just land you in the “L” column when you get outspent or outplayed.

I’m not sure how much it’s snooty to simply ask people to play nice. I like the rough and tumble of a primary, but plenty of people don’t. Still, the larger point is: Democrats, including Patty Murray, passed campaign finance reform. It was difficult and it took a lot of political capital. Then the Supreme Court invalidated it. Now it’ll take a Constitutional amendment or a different Supreme Court to fix things. Is Josh really saying until there’s a Constitutional amendment, Democrats can’t complain about the way things are. Not until they’ve fixed them? What the fuck is that?

Some hours after I posted the Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza! there were interesting new developments in the 2012 Presidential race that can be appreciated best visually.

It began with this advertisement from the Obama campaign that had everyone all a-twitter:

David Kurtz at TPM, in particular, is awestruck by the ad:”One for the History Books” he titles a post, and at one point he comparing it to FDR LBJ’s Daisy ad (this one).

Locally, The Stranger‘s Paul Constant expressed some enthusiasm for the ad (his emphasis, not mine):

Holy fucking shit. This is the most brutal attack ad I’ve seen in a long, long time. It minces the hell out of Romney’s offshore fortunes and his record as a jobs exporter (in the private and public sectors). And it makes fun of Romney’s singing voice, turning his version of “America, the Beautiful” into a symbol of his warped view of patriotism

The Romney campaign hit back with an ad that can only be described as pathetic:

The thesis is that by hitting Mitt Romeny hard on the Bain thing, it somehow negates Obama’s “Hope and Change” message of the last campaign. The writers obviously try to confuse Obama, the President, and Obama, the candidate.

For over three years, Republicans have been warning about how President Obama was “changing America into something unrecognizable.” Now, the Romney camp is “warning” America that Obama is just like other candidates.

It is conceivable that this ad actually helps Obama, by defusing the “changing America into something unrecognizable” argument for folks who don’t recognize that campaigns are not the same thing as policy.

The weekend has brought out a plethora of politicos making the rounds on the talk shows, including bulldogs like Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Karl Rove—who has the naked audacity to “warn” Obama about negative campaigning. That’s hilarious!

But of all the interviews, the ones with Romney campaign senior adviser Ed Gillespie are the most interesting.

In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union, Gillespie stated (my emphasis):

“He is going to release them [2 years of tax returns], Candy, we’ve made that clear, and that’s the standard that Senator McCain, Republican nominee in the last election said was the relevant standard. It’s the standard that Senator John Kerry as the Democratic nominee said was the standard.”

First…he really ought to rethink citing the losers of the past two elections as the model. Just sayin’.

Another problem is that John Kerry did not say that was the standard. Gillespie was off by an order of magnitude. Kerry released 20 years of tax returns. So, about that “standard”….

And on NBC’s Meet the Press we get this gem when David Gregory asked about Mitt benefiting financially from Bain even while on leave:

He actually retired retroactively…

Watch the 00:01:57 clip:

The Twitterosphere has gone bananas with the hash tag #retroactively.

I’ll close by pointing out two things.

First, when the Romney campaign has to “explain” the subtly of Romney’s position during the “bad” Bain years by using a five syllable adverb, they’re not just losing the campaign battle, they’re fucking losing their base!

Secondly, I’ll point out again what a precarious position Romney is now in. We know he was drawing a six-figure salary for, apparently, being on leave; for being completely detached from decisions at Bain. But the media smells blood in that—they will relentlessly attempt to unearth evidence that Romney did make some big decisions. And they’ll probably find something.

But even if they don’t, Romney still has the (relatively unexamined) implications found in Gregory’s question: As the owner of and sole shareholder in Bain and other spin-off companies, Romney was at a minimum receiving salary and investment profit from outsourcing, layoffs, liquidations, the offshore tax havens and, apparently, disposal of fetuses.

That he solely owned Bain through 2001 is undisputed fact. It just makes him look like a weasel to absolve himself of all responsibility, while earning millions, because he was on leave. Or retired.^&

^&retroactively.

Liberal Viewer: FAUX News profanity hypocrisy.

Pap: Republicans bury their heads in the sand on climate change.

Young Turks: Nutjobber Rep. Michele Bachmann, “Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating America”.

NAACP Convention:

• Mitt Romney’s Black base.
• Organs make political speeches better:
• Slate News: Romney gets booed.
• Young Turks: Joe Biden’s NAACP speech.
• Young Turks: Mitt Romney NAACP speech conspiracy theories.

Alyona’s Tool Time Award: David Brooks and “Meritocracies”.

ONN: Ron Paul makes campaign stop in whimsical jalopy.

Young Turks: Climate change or just hot weather?

Jimmy Kimmel: Boehner’s tears.

Ann Telnaes: Empowering women with choice and education.

Thom with The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.

Mitt’s Olympic Trial:

• Slate News: Is Mitt Romney lying about leaving Bain?
• Young Turks: When did Mitt Romney leave Bain.
• Vetting Mitt’s Veeps: Sarah Palin:
• Ann Telnaes: Dick Cheney fundraiser.
• Newsy: When did Mitt leave?
• Young Turks: Obama campaign’s devastating, simple strategy to attack Romney.
• Jenn: Mitt Romney is unworthy of the Presidency.
• Maddow: Romney paid as a do-nothing President?!?
• Bill Press: DNC on Romney’s ‘ludicrous and shocking’ claims about stimulus money
• John Oliver: Mitt Romney is not boring.
• Young Turks: Where in the world is Mitt’s Money.
• Maddow: Ghosts of Bush Administration haunt Romney’s campaign.
• Mitt’s Bain secret exposed!
• Barely Political: An iPhone 4Mitt:
• Daily Kos Radio: Bain-a-palooza
• Thom and Pap: Romney caught Lying Again & Again & Again

Stephanie Miller: A Sarah Palin election sound bite.

Sam Seder: Rick Scott’s vision seems to be “Tuberculosis For Everyone!”

Thom: Do we need the Disclose Act or a Constitutional amendment?

Sam Seder: Ron and Rand’s internet manifesto.

Maddow: “Scott Brown claims Clinton, Biden call him!

Mark Fiore: The Godawful Particle.

Papantonio & Lizz Winstead: Lizz Free or Die.

Ann Telnaes: Boehner gets his health-care facts wrong.

Thom with more Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

LePage-turner:

• America’s STUPIDEST Governor??? LePage (R-ME) doubles down on comparing ‘Obamacare’ to the Holocaust (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Young Turks: IRS=Gestapo.

Threatening the First Lady!?!

Greenman: Welcome to the rest of our lives:

Thom with The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.

Maddow: Reprieve for Mississippi’s last abortion clinic.

Alyona: Whale Wars.

Young Turks: Obama’s “biggest mistake” during Charlie Rose interview.

Pap and Cliff Schecter on offshore banking scams:

• Part I.
• Part III.
• Part III.

White House: West Wing Week.

Kimmel: This week in unnecessary censorship.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

It’s an absolute disgrace that we still need this sort of thing, but Seattle Center is hosting a health fair this Sunday. If you need any of the services below, you can avail yourself.

As a part of The Next Fifty’s Global Health Month, a Health Fair will be conducted on July 15th, 2012 at Key Arena. The Health Fair will focus on the health of our communities by providing free health services to the general public.

Services include:
Dental
Screenings for diabetes and cholesterol
Vision and hearing
Mammograms
Physicals
Educational programs about nutrition and general health,
Much much more!

I’m going to be generous to Mitt Romney today. But first some context.

As his primary opponents predicted earlier this year, Mitt’s Bain Capitol record is coming back to bite him in the assets. The latest (which probably isn’t really the latest in the few minutes it takes me to write this post) comes from The Boston Globe:

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Here’s the generous part: Mitt’s account may be correct! It very well may be that he left Bain for Salt Lake City, and psychologically detached from Bain, leaving all of the management in the hands of his trusted partners.

I can imagine a departing speech, perhaps held on a yacht in Boston Harbor:

I’ve got an Olympic-sized corruption scandal and fiscal problems to deal with in SLC. So, I’m taking a leave. I’ll have nothing more to do with running Bain through the end of the Olympics. I leave it to you, my trusted friends, to maximize shareholder profits. (And as the only shareholder, I demand it! [forced laugh.]) If you make the shareholder fabulously wealthy, you will be generously rewarded when I move on to my post-Olympic project…. So for now, you have the helm.

(Exit stage right.)

And maybe Mitt lived up to this ideal. There is even some evidence consistent with this account. In some sense, then he shouldn’t be held accountable for decisions made during his leave. Right?

The political problem for Mitt is that, as Kevin Drum points out, the whole thing just looks icky. Denying responsibility for big decisions while at the same time being listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” on multiple SEC filings, makes Mitt look like he is dodging responsibility.

It feels weaselly. Apparently…the buck doesn’t stop with Mitt. (It’s spirited away to a Swiss Bank Account.)

Furthermore, pulling down a salary (even a paltry $100,000) while on leave makes it seem like he was either actively doing something for the company, or skimming without justification.

Either one may be true without tying Mitt to actual decisions (or knowledge of) embarrassing investments and politically damaging layoffs. But, either way, it still looks bad, and people will have to be excused for feeling misled by Mitt.

But here is the deal. I think this Bain thing has left Mitt in a precarious position…and with a much bigger problem.

The problem is that any evidence of decision making at Bain during his leave will make a liar out of Mitt. The evidence so far is good for Mitt. And thousands and thousands of pages of additional documentation may well be released. But proof doesn’t come from negative evidence, so uncertainty will linger.

The flip side is that it will take but one memo, one recording of an invited speech, one email, a telephone recording, or maybe even a handful of disgruntled ex-employees with some personal notes (remember the Veterans who “served with” John Kerry?) to provide a solitary example of Mitt making a major decision for Bain during his leave…and Mitt’s credibility will be decimated.

And worst of all for Mitt, there is a huge incentive to be the first news organization to find it.

The race is on!

– The distinction between the nuns on a bus and the bishops making demands is quite telling.

– The wingnuts sure know their history.

– “There is a clear business case for supporting equal access to civil marriage rights,” said George Allen, the Chamber’s vice president for government relations.

– Men aren’t going extinct.

– The City of Seattle is supporting a court challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

– If, however, you insist on talking and writing things down, here’s a pro-tip: the terms “distraction” and “chronically ill and abused” don’t mix. Pretty much ever.

– Accused Burglar Incorporates Self

As you may know, our state’s Attorney General, Rob McKenna takes credit for co-founding the state attorneys general lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Apparently, McKenna lost control of the lawsuit, because he repeatedly claimed that he only wanted the “mandate” and the Medicaid provisions thrown out. Indeed, his own official web site claimed that, “This suit will not ‘overturn’ or ‘repeal’ the new health care reform legislation.”

His co-conspirators colleagues saw it differently. The lawsuit ended up asking the courts to strike down the entire law.

So…remember a couple of Thursdays ago when the Supreme Court found the PPACA “mandate” constitutional? That very day, McKenna gave a press conference in has capacity as Attorney General and as one of the instigators of the ill-fated lawsuit against PPACA. Here is a excerpt from the Q&A (video here):

Jim Brunner: Do you support Congress repealing this law […]?

Rob McKenna: This law is not going to be repealed…

Jim Bruner: Do you support it being repealed?

Rob McKenna: No. There are a number of provisions in this law that ought to be maintained.

Okay…he had to be asked a second time when he tried giving a non-answer the first time, but…pretty clear answer, no?

Yesterday, McKenna further “clarified” his position when speaking before Chamber of Commerce in Yakima :

…McKenna said the reports were a misinterpretation by “Seattle media” and that his position on the Affordable Care Act hasn’t changed.

“I wish I had been better prepared with a better articulated response than the one I gave at the press conference,” McKenna told the luncheon audience after an attendee accused him of changing his stance. “Frankly I didn’t think we were going to lose so I wasn’t ready for that question.”

McKenna insisted he was only asked whether Congress would go forward with repealing the act, not whether he thinks it should be repealed.

Huh. The media clearly reported that McKenna didn’t want Congress to repeal the PPACA. So…um, now, under criticism on the other side of the Mountains, McKenna claims the “Seattle Media” misinterpreted him? So…he is suggesting to a more conservative audience that he believes it should be repealed?

So…to further “clarify” exactly how McKenna feels, his campaign manager, Randy Peeple points out:

…McKenna’s position has not changed and that his [forthcoming] op-ed will not be calling for repeal of the health-care law. Instead, he said McKenna will more fully lay out the parts of the law he still has concerns with and how he’d responsibly approach them as governor.

McKenna has continued to warn about the expense of the law’s Medicaid expansion and has said its individual mandate is problematic despite the court’s ruling. (At his June 28 news conference, however, McKenna said the mandate should remain in place “for now” because it is so closely tied to key positive parts of the health-care law.)

So…the “mandate” is problematic (East) but he wants it to remain in place (West).

Come on. He’s just fucking with everyone now!

This is very interesting indeed [h/t].

[Alexander Hamilton] duly makes an appearance as the judges are warming up to denounce the individual mandate as constitutional overreach because it dragoons healthy young individuals into buying health insurance they do not want.

If Congress can do that, the dissenting justices write, “then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws … spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.”

Those are indeed the words of Alexander Hamilton, but, as they’re quoted here, it seems that he must have been warning against the ever-present tyranny of the federal government. But that was not what he was saying.

…

The relevant clauses of the Constitution, Hamilton wrote, had been “the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation…” He castigated his political opponents who had criticized the powers the Constitution gave to the federal government “… in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.”

Hamilton did not decry the federal government as a constitutional Godzilla. He denounced the Anti-Federalists for their distortions and lies.

I don’t really know what to make of that. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe someone who is can help me out. It seems like the argument Ian is making is that the justices wanted to overturn the act so they turned to some dubious history. Still, shouldn’t some clerk have verified what the quote meant before it got to the opinion?

– Higgs

– Democracy itself is under attack. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson had this sort of thing in mind when he wrote the great document.

– Romney wasn’t so much a captain of industry as a captain of deindustrialization, making big profits for his firm (and himself) by helping to dismantle the implicit social contract that used to make America a middle-class society.

– What to do with disused parking lots is one of those questions.

– Words will never break your bones. But also, they shouldn’t make you numb. You can’t feel everything all the time — nor should you — but don’t forget how to feel altogether.

– I did a fair amount of cleaning yesterday, but I think this may be my strategy going forward.

It’s bizarre. Really, really bizarre.

Rob McKenna has largely been a cautious politician. He has mastered the technique of being as inoffensive as possible—an absolute necessity for a Republican running for statewide office in Washington state. So, when asked to comment on an inflammatory partisan issue, McKenna skillfully responds with the most vacuous, inoffensive answer imaginable.

But the façade has been showing cracks. They became apparent during McKenna’s gubernatorial kick-off event, when Goldy was barred from entry to the press conference. The campaign was specifically targeting Goldy or The Stranger for exclusion.

What the fuck?!? That’s the kind of petty shit I expect from Tim Eyman, not a serious person asking to be the next Governor of Washington. My impression at the time:

There are warning signs here. The McKenna campaign, right out of the starting gate, is engaging in thuggery. “Open government champion,” my ass.

Two days after McKenna’s kick-off, The Stranger’s Eli Sanders ran into McKenna outside the KUOW studios and asked him about excluding Goldy. McKenna responded:

“I don’t think David Goldstein qualifies as a journalist,” a miffed McKenna told Eli. “He’s a hack. He’s a partisan hack. He’s just there to parrot points from the other side.”

Legally, McKenna is simply wrong. Goldy is a journalist under the laws of our state.

You would think the Attorney General would know that!

(*Crack*)

Then there was the cupcake incident, where McKenna was to give a speech before the King County Young Republicans:

McKenna was about 40 seconds into his talk—he was outlining the state’s dismal job numbers—when a young man in a blue Cougars baseball cap, blue sweat jacket, jeans, and Tevas walked in, sat in the front row, took out a camera and started filming.

McKenna stopped and asked the man who he was with. The man gave his name, Zach Wurtz, and said he was with the Washington State Democrats. The Young Republicans club president, Jennifer Fetters, asked him to leave. Nope. McKenna told Wurtz to turn off the camera. Wurtz refused. McKenna’s voice got sharper, “You need to put the camera away. Now!”

Through the cracks is revealed a peevish—and possibly paranoid—man.

That same mix of peevish and paranoia was seen when he barked, “Get a job!” to Kendra Obom, a woman asking him questions about his position on the Reproductive Parity Act:

McKenna first tried to blow off her question, stating that as a lawyer for the state — he is currently Washington’s attorney general — he wasn’t allowed to comment. Then, apparently flustered, he went after Obom personally, asking her if she thought she was being honest and accusing her of trying to gain a political advantage.

Despite Obom identifying herself as a youth worker, McKenna ends his interaction by telling her “Why don’t you go get a job?”

A candidate has the right to be dickish, of course. Perhaps McKenna was picked on too much in school. Or maybe being a partisan Republican in a moderate’s clothing has rendered him a little skittish and paranoid. But these events strongly suggest that McKenna has serious character flaws that are, at the very least, unseemly in a Governor.

It becomes totally unacceptable when a candidate’s character flaws infect his judgement as a public official. This is precisely what happened last Thursday, when McKenna’s staff specifically targeted Goldy for exclusion from an AG press conference. Goldy’s news editor, Dominic Holden, the person who had assigned Goldy to cover the conference reported:

“They are physically blocking me from entering,” Goldy told me by phone, seven minutes before the 11:30 a.m. press conference was scheduled to begin. A spokesman for McKenna, Dan Sytman, had told Goldy a few minutes before that Goldy wasn’t a journalist and then blocked him from entering. A McKenna staffer had also grabbed Goldy by the shoulders and turned him away from the door.

(*Snap*)

Goldy offers two competing hypotheses:

1. McKenna wasn’t aware of the legal issues of barring a member of the press (or even the public) from public meetings.
2. Our State Attorney General, out of some mix of personal vendetta and sense of invulnerability, used his office to illegally intimidate a citizen into giving up his rights.

This latest episode goes beyond “warning sign.” It’s a danger sign. Rob McKenna has some serious flaws in his temperament that make him paranoid and vengeful—to the point of abusing his office.

It is something voters really ought to know about.

– I love the Donald Verrilli meme.

– And I love the over the top reactions to health care being upheld from conservatives.

– #Noshame

– It must be tough to switch what you believe when you were thrust into the spotlight at a young age.

– Why can’t Democrats just get behind Obama, admit ACA is a big win, admit Obama’s election was a big win? I’m a mopey, pessimistic, anxious, depressive person, but I still can’t understand it.

– How people see conservatives.

– Health care reform glossary

– There are going to be a lot of sappy Olympic profiles. So far, this is my favorite.

Proverbs 30:15
The leech has two daughters.
‘Give! Give!’ they cry.

Discuss.

When you’re an elected official in Washington State acting in the capacity of your office, you can’t decide who gets to attend your press conferences. They’re open to the public. But Rob McKenna doesn’t seem to realize that.

Yesterday morning, Attorney General Rob McKenna notified media across the state that he would be speaking about the US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act. McKenna was one of 26 state attorneys general who sued to block the Affordable Care Act. But when Stranger reporter David “Goldy” Goldstein arrived for the press conference at McKenna’s downtown Seattle offices, a guard was waiting for him. Cameramen, radio people, and reporters were granted free entry. Goldy was prevented from entering.

“They are physically blocking me from entering,” Goldy told me by phone, seven minutes before the 11:30 a.m. press conference was scheduled to begin. A spokesman for McKenna, Dan Sytman, had told Goldy a few minutes before that Goldy wasn’t a journalist and then blocked him from entering. A McKenna staffer had also grabbed Goldy by the shoulders and turned him away from the door.

Of course this isn’t too surprising coming as it does from a man who doesn’t recognize the difference between campaign mode and serving the public. Still, we should expect better from our elected officials.

My questions in bold, Gael Tarleton’s answers are below.

1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?

We are not fully funding public education. It is the moral and constitutional obligation we must meet. To fully fund public education, we must think about providing early childhood education through lifelong learning. We need to change the discussion so that we prioritize funding to achieve shared education goals:

– We want 80 percent of high school students earning their high school diplomas 10 years from now. Therefore, we should fund public school systems to help them reach that goal – and that means working with teachers, administrators, parents and kids to help communities with the resources needed to succeed.

– We want early childhood learning centers in every school district in the state to be accessible and affordable. Therefore, we must fund programs in parts of the state with limited numbers of early childhood learning centers.

– We want our higher education system focused on serving our residents who are ready for college-level courses and technical school programs. Therefore, we must fund programs that help high school teachers and college deans and departmental chairs co-develop high school curricula, especially in English, Life Sciences, Foreign Languages, Applied Mathematics, and Sociology/History.

– Our higher educational institutions must have the No. 1 priority of making higher education affordable and accessible to all our citizens for lifelong learning. Any newly available revenues must immediately support hiring new teachers so that more courses are taught, which in turn will allow higher ed to admit more students each year. At a minimum, we should aspire to have 70 percent of incoming undergraduate students at our four-year institutions each year be Washington residents. We should expect and plan for having 90 percent of first- time students in our community colleges and technical schools be Washington residents. We must place special priority in the next decade on having our higher education system serve high school graduates from low-income and immigrant communities, returning veterans, and adults who have lost jobs and are preparing for a new career.

The most important task we face is to set shared goals now, develop a 10-year funding plan, and examine how existing revenues must be more effectively allocated to get to work on these four goals. As new revenues are available from various sources, we will have a strategic plan for how best to allocate those dollars.

We have the following options for public revenues: school bond levies in local jurisdictions; state tax revenues to support low-interest student loans, salaries, operations, capital infrastructure, and programmatic initiatives; federal grants to match state programs for student loans, free- and reduced-lunch programs; and potentially new taxes if the state’s Supreme Court upholds the King County ruling that I-1053 is unconstitutional.

From a budgeting and planning perspective, we must have two scenarios in mind: what we do if I-1053 is overturned, and what we do if it is not. The obligation to fully fund public education is the constant in a sea of uncertainty. How we meet this obligation is up to us. After working for eight years at the University of Washington to help secure millions of dollars in grants and gifts for faculty and students, I know the impact that these investments have on the economy, environment, and quality of life for all Washingtonians. We must meet this funding challenge.

2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?

Yes, I will be an advocate for the following kinds of revenue options and reforms:

– Examine the current constraints on how local jurisdictions, especially special-purpose districts, are able to use their existing taxing authority with property taxes.

– Develop strategies for enabling local jurisdictions to enter into time-limited partnerships where they create funding mechanisms for building a 21st Century infrastructure for a clean economy: multi-jurisdictional transit systems; construction and technology solutions to stop toxic runoff from local communities to protect Puget Sound, rivers and streams; shared investment in renewable energy infrastructure such as electric charging networks; and other capital-intensive investments that local jurisdictions cannot handle on their own.

– Develop a rate-paying “environmental infrastructure district” system to have all users pay into the equivalent of a public utilities district. This is the kind of progressive reform that makes all of us responsible for clean air and clean water infrastructure investments.

– Adopt “system tolling” on critical transportation corridors to fund regional transit solutions and safe pedestrian/bicycling corridors that separate freight and autos from bikes and pedestrian users.

– Identify a more fair and equitable way to use B&O revenues to reinvest in what small-business owners need most and do best: to help them hire and retain more employees, reduce the cost of start-up loans, incentivize innovative strategies for clean energy and clean trade; and make them the centerpiece of how we build a modern economy beyond fossil fuels.

– When we pass legislation regarding tax exemptions, we must understand what programs will be most affected by exempting private entities from paying their taxes. State legislators should identify what sources of revenue will be used to protect against the constant erosion of critical funding obligations resulting from tax exemptions.

3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?

There is an equally good chance that the Governor’s Mansion, State’s Attorney General, and both State legislative bodies will be controlled by Democrats. Recent Elway polls show that the state’s political climate and voter party affiliation are not growing more conservative: voters are instead becoming more independent. Some observers believe independents tend to vote Democratic more frequently than they vote Republican. The 36th District is frequently described as the anchor of liberal, progressive Seattle politics. It is also home to more than 20,000 working-class jobs in the Ballard-Interbay Manufacturing Industrial Center, including 15,000 jobs related to the fishing and seafood processing markets. There are thriving small business communities in every corner of the District. The District is where the working class and middle class co-exist. This strengthens our communities because we believe in teachers, metal workers, fishers, start-up companies, family-owned small businesses, parks for kids, and the dignity of work with living wages, regardless of the type of job a person might hold.

We have an aggressive agenda for job creation, expanding higher education affordability, providing healthcare, and protecting our environment. We are also home to a recreational boating industry that generates $3.5 billion in revenues across the state, as well as home to the grain terminal at Pier 86 that makes Washington’s agricultural firms competitive in a global economy where 90 percent of their business comes from exports through the Port of Seattle. When we focus on creating jobs, expanding markets for Washington companies, and strengthening opportunities for Washingtonians to pursue higher education, we will help legislators from all over the state share common cause.

That said, I’ve learned from experience that solutions to problems don’t happen with group think. I don’t just reach across the aisle; I’ve reached across continents and communities to do the hard work of creating jobs, building bridges, and protecting communities. To help create an international earthquake monitoring network, I worked with Russians and Ukrainians and the International Atomic Energy Agency. To fight human trafficking, I’ve worked with State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-36, and King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert. To help rebuild the South Park Bridge, I worked with the South Park Neighborhood Association, the Machinists, and colleagues at the Port, City, County and State to find the funding. And to build the Rental Car Facility that created more than 3,700 jobs in South King County, I worked with elected officials in the State Legislature as well as Sea-Tac, Des Moines, and Burien.

4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?

We’re all asking the voters to hire us to do a job. We may share the same values, but we all have different experience and qualifications to do the job of a lawmaker. I’m asking the voters to hire me because I have the experience and skills of working in the public and private sectors creating jobs, solving difficult problems, and managing millions of dollars in budgets. When it comes to solving tough problems with responsible funding strategies, my experiences working in federal, state, and local governments as well as in a technology company and international markets give me a deep reservoir of ideas, lessons learned, and experts to help find solutions. These are the resources that will help me do the work that voters are hiring me to do.

As a Port Commissioner, I have helped create 7,000 living wage jobs through critical public works projects. At UW, I’ve worked with scientists, engineers, historians, political scientists, archeologists, musicians, and cybersecurity experts to help secure millions of dollars in grants and endowments for faculty and students. I’ve worked with legislators from all over the state to help criminalize human trafficking, create more open contracting laws, and build transit and transportation corridors that help our companies compete globally. To accelerate a clean, green trade agenda in Washington, I’ve supported partnerships with the Port of Seattle, WSU, Climate Solutions and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to develop an aviation biofuels market based in Washington, while also supporting investments in electrification and renewable energy infrastructure. And as a federal government employee, I’ve written policies and run programs regarding critical national security interests and concerns.

5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?

We all have a stake in the success of our schools and our students, regardless of their home base. We will all benefit if we have affordable access to public health centers and community clinics. We all share a stake in tackling climate change and building the foundation for a clean economy in the 21st century. If we reflect on how the concept of the public commons emerged in Washington, it will help us understand how to think about sharing resources with communities and regions that don’t live in our own backyard.

All property owners pay property taxes to build infrastructure and invest in healthy, safe communities. However, not all people who benefit from investments in the public commons are paying property taxes. Does that mean we stop paying our fair share of taxes? No. It would be short-sighted when we want to collectively improve the quality of life for everyone, not just the District we represent. The state pays only 7 percent of the annual operating costs of the University of Washington, its flagship public university. Just 20 years ago, the state paid closer to 40 percent of the total annual operating costs. Yet UW benefits the public commons of the whole state, Pacific Northwest, the nation and the world. UW’s nursing and public health graduates are the people who staff community health clinics and protect public health systems throughout the state and the Pacific Northwest. The UW School of Medicine receives $700 million a year from the federal government to educate the doctors who will be serving rural, low-income, and underserved communities with safe healthcare. Researchers at UW spawned the life sciences research community that has become home to the Gates Foundation, PATH, and Nobel Laureates – all in our district.

When we talk about who is getting their “fair share” of the tax pie, it is a familiar refrain that another part of the state benefits from King County’s and Seattle’s wealth. But the people in Seattle and King County who like to go skiing in the Cascades, own homes on Lake Chelan, go hiking on Mount Adams, or take weekends sampling wines in Walla Walla are only able to enjoy these benefits because they can fly there, drive there, drink clean water, and benefit from cheap electricity. And they benefit when their kids decide they’d rather go to school at WSU or Central Washington because they like the idea of dry, sunny weather three weeks in a row.

We will create jobs, opportunities, and a cleaner economy if we invest in research at Central Washington University or in social services for returning veterans in Tacoma or Yakima. The 36th District’s small businesses want to hire people who are prepared for jobs in the trades, fishing industry, biotechnology companies, or software start-ups. One of the most important roles I will play in Olympia for my district is making sure we are showing how tax revenues are used to create jobs, prepare employees for high-demand job markets, and give all our communities a chance to live a decent life and pursue affordable education.

My proposal to create a sustainable funding base for public health revolves around this idea of a shared stake in a common network. The “Public Access To Health Services” (PATH) center calls for reforming the way we use property tax authority of special purpose districts in the state. If we allow special purpose districts to share their property taxes to create local health centers, we stand a chance of putting public health services on a sustainable financial path. My district would help lead the way, as we have thousands of public health professionals, caregivers, and small business owners who would be potential partners in making affordable health care, family planning, adult day care, and other essential services available to our communities.

Our district also believes in investing in a clean economy future. Our ideas and know-how for designing and building environmental infrastructure systems for homeowners and small business owners will create best practices for others around the state. When we share knowledge and solutions that help our own communities, we are creating the foundation for helping all Washingtonians live in healthy, safe communities where they will enjoy a better quality of life.