Goldy

I went looking for my usual Monday morning fodder on the Seattle Times editorial page, only to be confronted with these headlines from the Times’ home page:

Huh. I suppose that’s one way to deal with the Nightmare on Fairview. If only it were that easy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7684tTVUeI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAkg6G8iXQI[/youtube]

Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01) held a press conference this afternoon at Seattle’s Childrens Hospital to announce an agreement struck to correct the dramatic regional disparities between Medicare reimbursement rates, disparities that have penalized Washington’s relatively efficient healthcare delivery system to the tune of tens of of millions of dollars a year. It is also an agreement that, as I will explain later, helps pave the way to a public option.

Above is raw footage of Rep. Inslee’s announcement. Stay tuned for additional footage, selected clips and further analysis.

Everybody knows that Democratic U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01) has long had his eye on the governor’s mansion, and is widely expected to give up his House seat to run for our state’s top office in 2012. But who of note has his eye on Rep. Inslee’s coveted House seat, once it becomes vacant?

Word is that noted travel writer and TV and radio personality Rick Steves is seriously considering giving up his globetrotting ways for an extended stay in the other Washington, and is already working the local Democratic circuit in preparation for a potential run. The latest evidence? Steves jumped at the offer to be the keynote speaker at the Snohomish County Dems’ Annual Gala fundraiser on Sept. 12.

Yes, I know, 2012 is quite a ways off, but it wasn’t so long ago that Inslee was a top candidate for the number one or two position in President Obama’s Department of Energy, giving Steves a more immediate opportunity to explore his own political ambitions. And it was during this time, with a potential special election looming, that Steves reportedly firmed up his intention to run.

Through his popular guidebooks, website, radio and TV shows, the ever likable and seemingly unflappable Steves has expanded his Edmunds WA based tour business into a low-key, travel empire, making himself a nationally known public figure in the process. And in recent years, Steves has increasingly leveraged his national audience and stature to insert his own unique experiences into the public debate.

While his website is still largely devoted to his tour business and travel guides, it now contains an entire section devoted to “Social Activism,” including commentary arguing for a “European perspective” on drug control policy (he urges America not to be “hard” or “soft,” but rather, “smart on drugs”), and a link to his controversial ACLU-sponsored video urging the end of our nation’s failed “prohibition on marijuana.” Steves has also recently earned himself the unbridled hatred of many on the knee-jerk right for his thoughtful documentary on traveling through Iran, in which he shows the Iranian people as anything but an axis of evil.

But rather than protect his business by pulling back from his activism in the face of increasingly strident attacks, Steves chose to respond to his critics with a new book, “Travel as a Political Act.” Indeed, it appears that the harsh reaction from the right has only served to further politicize Steves.

For the life me, can’t understand why Steves would want to give up what appears to be one of the best jobs in the world for one which often appears to be one of the worst (I once phrased the same question to KIRO radio host and former WA-08 contender Dave Ross, who genuinely, it seems, believes in something he calls “public service”), and with 2012 such a long ways off, Steves still has plenty of time to come to his senses. But if he doesn’t, I think he’d make a great candidate, and while not everybody will be as thrilled as fellow HA blogger Lee, I know a lot of folks who would welcome Steves to the race.

It was hot last night at Seattle’s Town Hall, both literally and figuratively. Outside, advocates of a single-payer healthcare system were chanting and leafleting. Inside, as Gov. Howard Dean spoke about healthcare reform, the crowd was only slightly less boisterous.

Though friendly and receptive as Gov. Dean took the podium, when it came time to take questions from the audience it quickly became apparent that the many of those inside shared the sentiments of those on the street, with some of the questioners filibustering their opportunity at the mic to take an uncompromising stance in favor of single-payer, and opposed to anything less. It was apparently a familiar scene for Gov. Dean, who had just arrived from a similar engagement in Portland, OR, where several single-payer advocates had to be removed from the audience after disrupting the proceedings.

Gov. Dean, a licensed physician and former presidential candidate and DNC Chair, is on tour promoting his new book “Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform,” but for many true believers, Gov. Dean’s prescription—take a public option and call me in a decade—isn’t real enough. What plays out is the sorta classic confrontation between idealism and pragmatism that so often undermines reforms coming from either end of the ideological spectrum, leaving those in the mushy middle so firmly in control. And it’s the kinda confrontation that the insurance industry and big pharma are counting on to stave off reform for another generation.

As Gov. Dean repeated throughout the Q&A, he’d personally prefer a single-payer system, as it’s the only reform that can guarantee universal coverage while quickly providing the level of savings needed to get our healthcare costs under control. But as he also repeated, polling consistently shows that the general public just isn’t there yet, let alone the laggards in Congress, so while single-payer shouldn’t necessarily be taken off the table, it would be unrealistic to expect it to move any further… at this point in time.

And here’s where that confrontation between idealism and pragmatism really comes into play. Public option opponents on the left dismiss the proposal as mere half-measures, while public option opponents on the right attack it as a slippery slope to single-payer. And they’re both right. The question is, will the lack of enthusiasm for the public option from idealists on the left ultimately play into the hands of the pragmatists on the right in their efforts to scuttle any substantive reforms at all?

As I’ve argued before, the public option is a slippery slope to single-payer, if implemented and executed correctly. Now some might characterize this admission as cynical and dishonest, but good policy done right is inherently a slippery slope toward better policy. As it should be. And it’s a slope we slide down only with the approval of a majority of voters.

So after he finished signing books I asked Gov. Dean whether he believed the public option would be a slippery slope to single-payer. I wanted him to say yes, and I sensed that he wanted to say yes as well. But he’s too smart for that… and too pragmatic. Instead, he enunciated what I think is the most rhetorically effective response I’ve ever heard to the right’s slippery slope argument, a response that totally undermines their objection, even without denying it:

[audio:https://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/dean.mp3]

This will be the change that the American people want at the pace that they want it. So the opponents have no right to make that argument. The Republican ability to make that argument assumes that they know better than the American people, that they’re so smart that the American people have no right to make up their own mind.

That’s what this bill is about. This bill is not about whether to have a single-payer or a public option or a private system; this bill is about whether the American people get to choose for themselves, or whether congressmen take it upon themselves to override the will of the American people and do something different. It’s a straight up vote between whether you’re in favor of the health insurance industry, or whether you’re in favor of your constituency. Everybody’s going to have to make that vote, and we’ll be watching.

The same could be said to the uncompromising advocates of a single-payer system.

I may not live to see the bottom, but I still believe that the public option will ultimately set us down that slippery slope to single-payer, and my sense is that many of its proponents believe the same, whether for pragmatic reasons, they’re willing to publicly say so or not. If given the choice, many Americans will flock to the public option, and if private insurers simply aren’t able to compete, I’m alright with that. It is ironic, after all, that those who insist there is no fundamental right to basic health care, also tend to be those who insist that there is a fundamental right to selling private health insurance.

Of course, there isn’t. And if the single-payer advocates can be as patient as they are passionate, I’m confident the American people will ultimately prove them right.

Staying true to their suburban sensibilities, the Seattle Times endorsed State Sen. Fred Jarrett for King County Executive today, just as I had predicted way back on June 25th:

Well, no, the Seattle Times hasn’t officially endorsed Fred Jarrett for King County Executive yet, but this morning’s editorial lauding him pretty much telegraphs that they will.

[…] The only question remaining is whether the Times endorses one or two candidates in the August primary, and if the latter, whether they’re crazy enough to endorse Susan Hutchison?

Well, they did do a dual endorsement, and no, they’re not crazy enough to endorse Susan Hutchison. State Rep. Ross Hunter gets the second, equally enthusiastic nod. No surprise there.

I suppose I could fisk the editorial; after all, there are plenty of passages with amusingly twisted logic such as:

King County has had just one executive from the Eastside, who served briefly as interim exec in the early 1980s. It isn’t so important where an executive hails from except it is a good idea to occasionally mix it up to offer different perspectives.

Get it? It isn’t so important where an executive hails from, except that we’d rather he’d hail from the Eastside. Fair enough. Stupid logic, but fair enough.

But you know what? It’s too nice a day to waste much time reading a Seattle Times editorial endorsement, let alone writing about one. What’s really important here is that it keeps my batting average predicting their endorsements near perfect.

And now that I know they’re doing dual endorsements in the primary, I’m ready to go out on a limb and make my next prediction: Joe Mallahan and (surprise!) Mayor Greg Nickels in the mayors race!

“Two assemblymen, three mayors, and several rabbis…”

It sounds like the set up to an old joke, but rather than walking into a bar, the perps mentioned above are behind bars today as part of a money laundering and political corruption investigation that swept up 44 suspects across New Jersey, Republicans and Democrats alike, and implicated many more.

Prosecutors said the investigation, reaching through layer upon layer of government, revealed a “pervasive” culture of corruption.

“New Jersey’s corruption problem is one of the worst, if not the worst, in the nation,” said Ed Kahrer, who heads the FBI’s white-collar and public-corruption investigation division. “Corruption is a cancer that is destroying the core values of this state.”

See, that’s why I laugh whenever I hear folks accusing Gov. Gregoire of being corrupt for (gasp) taking legal campaign contributions from tribes and unions, or comparing Mayor Nickels’ style to that of some East Coast political boss. Coming from Philadelphia, I know from corrupt political machines, and folks, this ain’t it.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy abusing our elected officials as much as the next guy, but as spineless, rudderless and ineffective as they can sometimes be, you gotta give them credit for at least being clean when it comes to the public till. Hell, we don’t even seem to get our fair share of sex scandals around here. Even when it comes to organized crime, the best Seattle can muster are two-bit hoodlums like the Colacurcios, whereas if this were Hoboken or Jersey City, rather than running strip clubs, Frank Jr. would be preparing to succeed his father as mayor.

I’m just sayin’….

A big chunk of Seattle’s spanking new light rail line grinded to a halt for much of yesterday, as problems with the downtown tunnel’s sophisticated control and signaling system (the only one in the world with stations serving both trains and buses) shut down service north of the Stadium station. And yet… no screaming headlines declaring light rail an epic fail.

Crosscut’s Skip Berger wrote on the opening of the line that light rail does not make Seattle a “grown-up” city, but perhaps our media’s calm and muted reaction to the new system’s first major hiccup does?

[kml_flashembed fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:239148″ targetclass=”flashmovie” publishmethod=”static” width=”400″ height=”300″]

[/kml_flashembed]

As Jon points out in the previous post, Boeing’s “no-strike clause or else” threat to its unions comes across as a bit shrill and hollow considering Washington’s reputation for having one of the most favorable business climates in the nation. I mean, “or else” Boeing will move 787 production where?

Much has been made of Boeing’s recent purchase of Vought Aircraft Industries’ Dreamliner plant in South Carolina, speculating that Boeing might leverage its investment to build a second 787 assembly line there. But this speculation ignores the reality of the deal, which is that it was only made necessary by the utter failure of Voight, like many of Boeing’s other outsourcing partners, to meet the quality and delivery standards necessary to keep the 787 project on time.

Boeing’s purchase of Vought’s facility was, in effect, an admission that Boeing’s outsourcing strategy, the “systems integrator” approach, is not working. There may be a flaw in Boeing’s overarching corporate strategy of dumping costly assets and globalizing production.

That’s right, Boeing bought the plant, responsible for assembling large sections of the 787’s fuselage, because it couldn’t rely on Vought to fix the facility’s endemic problems. Do you really think that’s a signal that Boeing is eager to entrust even more responsibility to South Carolina workers and managers when it already has a large, highly trained workforce available here?

Indeed, not only does Boeing have an ample supply of trained workers available in the Puget Sound region, it also has an assembly facility available that could be converted to 787 production with minimal capital investment and in little time. Of course, I’m referring to Boeing’s existing, 767 final assembly line in Everett.

Think about it. The 787 was always meant as a replacement for the 767, whose production has long been scheduled to be phased out one way or another. Remember, the main attraction to our region of Boeing getting the Air Force tanker contract was that it was based on the 767, and thus would keep production going at the Everett facility years beyond the model’s life as commercial passenger liner, and saving thousands of good-paying local jobs in the process. But in response to the Air Force’s obvious preference for a larger tanker, Boeing has resubmitted its bid with a tanker based on the larger 777. Win or lose, that’s a death sentence for the 767 assembly line.

But once (if) the 787 flies and Boeing swings into full production, that makes the 767’s Everett plant the obvious location for a second 787 assembly line.

Last year’s machinists strike my provide useful rhetoric for Boeing as the aerospace giant seeks concessions from legislators and labor, but even management understands that the bulk of the 787’s production woes have had little to do with local workers, and apart from the recent design flaw, have mostly stemmed from production problems from Boeing’s many out-of-state partners like Vought. In that context, what could possibly make more sense than starting a second assembly line at an existing Boeing facility with a highly-trained workforce that has proven track record of delivering quality product on time?

And if that’s not reason enough to keep 787 assembly here in the Puget Sound region, no amount of tax or labor concessions will be enough to convince Boeing management to change its mind.

In gloating over the refusal of both the King and Pierce county councils to put tax hike measures on the ballot this fall, the Seattle Times editorial board congratulates council members for their political cowardice:

It is remarkable how the fear of losing an election concentrates the political mind.

I understand the Times’ knee-jerk, ideological opposition to tax hikes (unless, of course, we’re talking about driving tens of thousands of entrepreneurs out of business by forcing on them the expense of quarterly filing sales taxes in 45 states… that, they’re for), and they’re entitled to that, but their obvious pleasure over politicians bowing to fear, just comes off as unseemly.

Yes, we want our elected officials to listen to the people, but there’s a difference between representing the interests of voters and pandering to them. Editorialists can howl all they want about the budget crises facing nearly every single state and local government in the nation being crises of these governments’ own making (instead of, you know, being largely the result a nearly unprecedented economic downturn), but that doesn’t make the real life impact of the resulting budget cuts any less painful or the anti-stimulative effect of slashing government spending and jobs any less dangerous.

The bold and responsible move would be to temporarily raise taxes slightly to help soften the blow, so that we don’t have to, say, dramatically cut back our public health budget at a time we’re preparing for a potentially devastating swine flu pandemic. And with opinion leaders like the Times working hard to cultivate a climate of political fear, it’s no wonder such a proposal came from interim King County Executive Kurt Triplett, a non-politician free to act on what he believes is best for King County rather than what is best for himself at the polls, only to be quickly shot down by council members with opposite incentives.

Yeah, “fear of losing an election,” or of losing a majority, or of merely losing a reliable source of campaign money, that’s what tends to motivate politicians. But if that’s such a good thing, it’s hard to understand why the Times isn’t more satisfied with government we’ve got?

[kml_flashembed fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”http://blip.tv/play/AYGTlE8C” targetclass=”flashmovie” publishmethod=”static” width=”400″ height=”300″]

[/kml_flashembed]

Martin at Seattle Transit Blog witnessed a car vs. pedestrian collision this morning on MLK Jr. Way. His conclusion?

We really ought to elevate or bury the traffic on MLK, to avoid this kind of thing. Anything less would be gross negligence.

Martin was, of course, being sarcastic (just in case you trolls couldn’t figure it out), and in so doing illustrates the absurdity of the cynical argument from anti-rail crazies that at-grade light rail is inherently unsafe, and thus Sound Transit should always be legally and financially liable for any collision with a train, regardless of who is at fault. You know, when a pedestrian runs in front of a train, that’s Sound Transit’s fault, but when a pedestrian runs in front of a car, well, that’s natural selection.

Oddly, unlike similar accidents involving trains, the Seattle Times and the rest of the local media have ignored this morning’s collision. Huh. I wonder why?

Both Crosscut’s Skip Berger and HA’s Carl Ballard took advantage of light rail to explore South Seattle. Both got off at Othello Station, both walked around the surprisingly active and distinctive neighborhood (surprising, at least, to outsiders), and both stopped for a bite to eat at one of the many Asian restaurants that dot the area.

And both came away with the same impression of how light rail will open up the once hidden neighborhoods along its path to the rest of the city.  First Carl:

The point of this (admittedly overindulgent) post is that light rail opens up a piece of the city for those of us without roots there and who make most of our trips without a car. Sure, this is something I could do yesterday if I’d wanted to. But it’s much easier to just get on a train than it is to figure out the bus schedule or to find parking if I’d wanted to drive. And I know exactly how to get home: hop on one of the trains that come every few minutes.

And then Skip:

For Seattleites who rarely get down to this part of the Rainier Valley, I predict Othello become a destination, even a place for a quick lunch for downtown workers who need a break. You can get there, have lunch, and be back downtown in less than an hour. I got off here and popped into the Huong Viet Cafe and bought a delicious pork sandwich. If I worked downtown, I might do that regularly.

[…] That’s one of the intriguing social prospects of the light rail line: it makes visible parts of the city that are often ignored. The trek down MLK, passing the new housing development, the old junkyards, the heavy machinery, the chain-link fence neighborhoods with “beware of the dog” signs and cars parked in the yard, the immigrant enclaves, the strange ethnic churches, the decaying strip malls — it helps put a big chunk of Seattle onto the visible map, at the very least for the tens of thousands of folks who will be taking light rail to the airport and might never otherwise see this part of the city.

As for me, I had the opposite experience, embarking from Othello Station, and suddenly finding myself in the middle of a bustling downtown Seattle street scene…a trip I am likely to take more often, now freed from the irritation and inconvenience of traffic (by car or by bus) and the hassle and/or expense of downtown parking. And at either end of the line, local merchants will benefit from the traffic of folks like Skip, Carl and me.

I was tempted to describe our explorations as intra-city tourism, but in fact, it is much more than that. Tourism implies a visit from outside, whereas light rail will ultimately serve to tie our city (and our region) closer together in a way that freeways and buses never have. Light rail, through its speed, comfort, reliability and permanence contracts the landscape, changing the dimension by which we experience distance from space to time, much in the same way as a high-rise elevator: nobody thinks of the fifth and fifty-fifth floors as being separated by fifty flights of stairs, and nobody plans their travel within the building accordingly. Likewise, when downtown Seattle, or any other stop along the way is always, say, 20 minutes away—not sometimes less, sometimes much, much more, depending on traffic—the boundaries between our neighborhoods will begin to blur, not in distinctiveness, but in distance.

The debate over light rail has largely focused on whether or not it is an efficient means of moving commuters, and no doubt commuters will always comprise the bulk of its ridership, but its impact on our region will be much greater that which could be achieved simply by giving commuters a better bus. Because it changes the way we view our region and use our various neighborhoods, light rail will make Greater Seattle both larger and smaller at the same time, an apparent paradox future generations will come to take for granted.

From an editorial in today’s Seattle Times (the emphasis is mine):

California’s tax structure is more aggressive. In addition to a sales tax it has a personal income tax. California designed its income tax to lay heavily on the wealthy, so that in good times it had a bountiful harvest of capital gains.

I think the the word they were looking for was “progressive,” but even an accidental description of an income tax as “aggressive,” because, unlike our system, it taxes the wealthy at higher rates than the poor, speaks volumes about the Times’ attitude toward tax fairness.