Goldy

After eliminating the also-rans, and tossing Speaker Frank Chop as an outlier, the qualifying round wasn’t even close, with long-time incumbents Sharon Tomiko Santos, Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney topping the field, so now it’s time for a loser-takes-all, sudden death runoff in our efforts to determine the Seattle Democratic state representative most deserving of a serious challenger in 2010.

In making your choice, I urge you to consider three main criteria.  1) How well does the incumbent represent the progressive values of her district? 2) How effective is the incumbent in representing our interests. 3) How vulnerable is the incumbent to a serious challenge? (Please don’t forget number 3; that’s one of the reasons why I eliminated Chopp.)

Of course, there’s nothing scientific about these polls, and I don’t mean them to be a personal attack on anybody. But there is this sense in the local Democratic community that not only are such intra-party challenges futile, even discussing the possibility is somehow disloyal and wrong… an attitude that I believe leads to complacency and ineptness, and ultimately threatens the Democratic Party’s hold on the reigns of state government.

The poll is now live at the top of HA’s home page; cast your vote while you can.

According to the financial experts at the Seattle Times, Washington state’s economy is on the cusp of recovery, and Gov. Gregoire deserves all the credit:

Gov. Chris Gregoire made a tough decision this year not to ask for a tax increase, and legislators, some of them reluctantly, backed her up. That was the right decision, and it will soon begin to pay off.

Yeah… sure… the “tough decision” is always to not raise taxes. Man do they disrespect their readers.

So, our economy has almost-maybe bottomed out, and that’s evidence that holding the line on taxes worked its magic? Of course, had Gregoire and the legislature chosen the opposite course, that lede would have been rewritten thusly, even given the exact same economic circumstances:

Gov. Chris Gregoire broke a campaign promise not to ask for a tax increase, and legislators, some of them reluctantly, backed her up. That was the wrong decision, and Washington’s economy is already paying the price.

But then, given the Times’s history of crappy business decisions, why would anybody take its economic advice seriously?

Ryan Blethen joins the rest of his editorial board in taking issue with the anti-Referendum 71 folks’ “Who Signed?” campaign.

What I, and this page, take issue with is the Web site called whosigned.org. The site will list everyone who signed Referendum 71. On the Web site it says this is being done so voters can make sure the public record is correct.

We all know that is not the case. The real purpose of whosigned.org is intimidation. People who sign petitions should understand that it is public record.

No, we don’t all know that this is not the case, for while intimidation, to some extent, is certainly part of the purpose of the whosigned.org web site, the strategy is a lot more subtle and nuanced than the Times admits (or understands).

Petitions are a public record, in the sense that should R-71 qualify for the ballot, I would have the right to go to the Secretary of State’s office and spend days examining the petitions by hand. But in reality, that’s not very public at all.

Personally, I would love to see petitions for all initiatives and referenda go online, both a computer searchable list of the petitioners, and PDFs of the actual petition sheets. Petitions are not a secret ballot, and were never intended to be. We have the right to petition our government, and our neighbors have the right to know who the petitioners are. Furthermore, with all petitions online and publicly searchable, I have no doubt that a significant amount of heretofore unknown signature fraud will be uncovered by citizen watchdogs.

We constantly hear from Eyman and his cohorts that there is no signature fraud in Washington state, and thus no need for reforms to identify and correct the problem, but really, how would we know when we’ve never looked for it? And honestly, why should we believe that WA is magically immune from signature fraud when it has proven to be endemic in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Colorado and every other state with an initiative process?

But Ryan continues…

But just because somebody signs a petition does not mean they support the referendum. People sign referendums for all sorts of reasons. It is not hard to believe that someone who supports marriage equality will sign it because they firmly believe the voters, not the Legislature, should have the final say.

People sign petitions because somebody asks them. That’s the number one reason. I know. I’ve been there, both collecting signatures, and as part of a coordinated “decline to sign” effort.

Watch the professional signature gatherers, particularly the ones collecting signatures on a number of unrelated petitions. They’ll make the case for the most sellable measure—more often than not, with lies—and then after you sign the top page and fill in your address information, they’ll quickly flip another clipboard in front of you and ask you to “please sign this one…” and “this one…” and “this one…” and so on.  And more often than not, the signer will. You don’t even always have to fill in the address information on the subsequent petitions, the signature gather will sometimes offer to copy it over for you.

On the other hand, decline to sign campaigns are incredibly effective. Merely shadowing a signature gatherer, politely refuting his misinformation, and asking people not to sign, was enough to motivate most folks to walk away entirely. After a couple hours of such efforts the signature gatherer would sometimes offer to hand over the Eyman petition I was opposing, or dump them in trash, if I would only leave him alone to conduct the rest of his business unencumbered.

Yeah, Ryan’s right, that some people will sign nearly any petition because they believe that everything should come before the people, but that’s a stupid and lazy abrogation of one’s responsibilities as a citizen. It’s supposed to be difficult to get an initiative or referendum on the ballot, lest public policy billow in the fickle winds of public opinion, and thus folks should be encouraged to put a little thought into the issue before blindly signing. (Nobody, but nobody, will read the text of R-71 before signing, I can guarantee you that.) If knowing that one’s signatures will indeed become a public record—that is, a record easily searched by the public—then perhaps more folks would think twice before affixing their names to a petition that calls for taking away rights from a class of citizens?

And that, I believe… a more thoughtful electorate… can only improve our democracy, right?

The polls have closed and it wasn’t even close, with Sen. Ken Jacobsen capturing a commanding 40% of the vote in a five-way race to determine the incumbent, Seattle state senator most deserving of a serious challenge in 2010.  And once again an anti-incumbency sentiment appeared to guide the results.

	Votes	Pct.	Years
Ken Jacobsen	78	40%	26
Jeanne Kohl-Welles	51	26%	17
Adam Kline	38	19%	12
Joe McDermott	18	9%	8
Ed Murray	11	6%	14

The table above shows total years of service in Olympia, both House and Senate. And once again the top vote getters are those who have served the longest.

How the sentiment of HA’s rather insular audience translates into broader public opinion, I’m not sure, but I think it’s safe to speculate that it does show a growing frustration with the performance of the Seattle delegation as a whole.

That said, good luck challenging Sen. Jacobsen, who despite his reputation for being a little out there is perhaps the king of Seattle retail politics, with an unsurpassed lifetime D/Y ratio (Doorbells rung to Years of service).

Coming up, the final House runoff between Sharon Tomiko Santos, Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney.

Today is the national Parade of Reason organized by Fuse and other progressive organizations, in which thousands of Americans will stop by their Congressperson’s local office and drop off a small memento illustrating their personal reasons for urging Congress to act now on climate change. You can get more information and find your local Congressional office here.

Oil and coal interests did some real damage to the climate change bill in committee, but there are still a lot of good provisions left, and… well… we gotta start somewhere, and soon. We all know Rep. Jay Inslee is a driving force on this and other environmental issues, but most of the rest  of the Western Washington delegation appears to be standing on the sideline. That’s why we need to urge Jim McDermott, Brian Baird, Adam Smith and Rick Larsen to get behind this bill now, help strengthen it on the floor, and get it passed when it comes up for a vote in a couple weeks.

And then there’s Rep. Dave Reichert.

Reichert likes to portray himself as moderate. The Seattle Times likes to portray him as a moderate. And faced with two tough, well financed challenges from Darcy Burner, Reichert occasionally found himself last session pushed into a few moderate votes, if only to save his own skin in November.

Of course, I’ve always insisted Reichert’s alleged “conscience driven independence” is a fraud, his votes against the party line always coming after the conclusion was foregone, and only after consistently opposing the measure in numerous procedural votes. So here’s his chance to prove me wrong.

Indeed, not only does Reichert have the chance to cast one of the only Republican votes for this legislation, he has the unparalleled opportunity to be the lone Republican getting out in front of this bill and leading the way. He and his handlers must know that climate change legislation has overwhelming support in his district—a pro-environment, hydro-powered district less economically dependent on fossil fuels than nearly any in the nation—so if he really wants to prove his moderation and independence (not to mention his legislative competence), now’s the time to show a little leadership and help shepherd this important piece of legislation through Congress.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Over at Crosscut (motto: “News from the great beyond”), Ted Van Dyk proclaims: “Peter Steinbrueck hurls some thunderbolts at Mayor Nickels.”

“Thunderbolts”…? Really?

Look, I like Peter well enough, but Zeus he ain’t. And the fact that Van Dyk would characterize him as such, even if only metaphorically, tells you a lot about Seattle’s bizarrely passive political culture.

If a board member of a not-for-profit—say, a prominent arts organization—were to use the organization’s internal email list to invite folks to a political fundraiser for a fellow board member running for local office… that would not only be inappropriate, but an obvious violation of IRS rules, right?

Somebody from the real press might want to look into that. There could be a story there.

This is exactly the sorta tone deaf and indecisive mismanagement that frustrates parents and forces many of the more affluent ones out of the Seattle School District:

Parents at a Seattle School Board meeting Wednesday night protested a proposed new assignment plan that — at least during its transition phase — would not guarantee that younger siblings could go to the same school as an older brother or sister.

[…] The School Board voted to move forward with the new student-assignment plan, but postponed a decision on the sibling issue until a detailed transition plan is developed along with new attendance boundaries in the fall.

Accepting the new assignment plan but postponing the sibling issue is the worst of both worlds, a half-assed move that leaves affected families in limbo for many more months. How many more kids are going to come back to school next September not knowing if this is their last year in that building? Does the board know? Do they care?

And in making this half-move, the board also telegraphs an incredible lack of confidence in its own decision making process, and perhaps, a lack of preparation to boot. I mean, shouldn’t the assignment maps be drawn and the sibling issue be settled before springing the new plan on parents, let alone approving it? And if the board doesn’t have enough confidence in the plan to settle the sibling issue up front, how can parents have confidence in the plan as a whole?

One abundantly clear lesson that was learned from our recent rounds of school closures is that despite all the press about failing schools, most families are not only satisfied with their children’s education (at least at the elementary school level), they love their schools so much that they’re willing to ferociously fight to save them.

Yes, our schools are underfunded. Yes, there are a handful of bad teachers and bad principals to whom the system just doesn’t seem capable of giving the boot. And yes, yes, yes, there are some curriculum issues—like slavishly teaching toward the WASL—that have proven a disservice toward teachers and students alike. Seattle schools aren’t perfect. Far from it.

But while we all want to improve the level of education in Seattle schools, it’s the complete and utter lack of stability that drives parental dissatisfaction levels sky high. How do you build a functional school program and community when from year to year you never know how many FTEs you’ll lose due to budget cuts, which principal will be rotated in or out of your school, which school your kids will be assigned to, or even whether your child’s school will remain open at all?

Nobody wants that for their child, and many of those who can afford better choose thusly.

There’s a reason why parents like those opposing the new assignment plan have taken to vociferously protesting school board decisions: we don’t trust ’em! And, we’ve learned that the board has so little trust in itself, our protests have a good chance of being successful.

A brief note to local journalists who insist on introducing conversations with or about Susan Hutchison by proclaiming that she is the “front-runner” in the county executive race or that polls show her with “commanding lead” or “far out ahead.” Stop. It just makes you sound stupid.

Yeah, sure, Hutchison is far ahead of any other individual candidate, but she’s the lone Republican in a crowded field featuring four Democratic elected officials. 35 percent is what any Republican would poll under similar circumstances. These are Will Baker numbers.

So by failing to provide any context, you give an impression that is clearly not true. And when she loses in a landslide in November, you’re only gonna sound dumb for trotting out the front-runner label in June.

Free! Free! Well… free seltzer, that is, at least, almost.

After decades of being yoked to the international seltzer cartel, I have finally broken free, assembling the home carbonating system pictured above. Some might find the initial $240 investment (with tax and shipping) a little extravagant, but consuming about a 2 liter bottle a day, at an average cost of a buck a bottle, this little baby will pay for itself in well under a year. After that, the cost of CO2 and water will come to less than a nickel a bottle.

Such a bargain.

Plus, this setup is environmentally friendly. No need to waste fossil fuel shipping carbonated tap water around the nation (or for me to drive to the store and lug it home), and I get to reuse these two liter bottles I’ve collected dozens of times before tossing them in the recycling bin.

Man do I feel quenched.

It’s time for round two of our legislative deadwood competition, in which you, the HA faithful, get to tell the incumbent members of Seattle’s legislative delegation which of them is most deserving of a serious intra-party challenge. (We used to call them “primary challenges” back when we still had primaries that meant anything.)

Unlike the recently concluded state representative qualifying round, in which you were encouraged to vote for as many incumbents as you wanted out of a primary field of twelve, this poll pits Seattle’s four Democratic incumbent state senators up for reelection in 2010 against each other in a final, loser-takes-all, sudden death competition. Criteria to consider in making your choice should include ideology, effectiveness and vulnerability… essentially, if the Seattle progressive community were to target one incumbent senator in 2010, which challenge would have the best chance of improving our delegation?

The poll is now live at the top of HA’s home page. You get a single vote, so make it count.

MY BAD:
Man is my face red. I’d originally put together the poll by pasting in the list of senators who last ran in 2006, which included Erik Poulsen in the 34th, but who since has been replaced by Joe McDermott. I’d caught the error, and thought I’d fixed it in PollDaddy, but apparently forgot to click the update button or something, so when the poll went live it included Poulsen’s name, not McDermott’s.  So we’ll subtract two votes from McDermott’s total at the end.

DOUBLE BAD:
As N points out in the comment thread, Sen. Ed Murray is up for reelection too.  Not sure how I missed that. Seltzer intoxication, perhaps?  Anyway, I’ve added him in rather than starting over, as the poll isn’t exactly scientific, but if he comes anywhere near the top I guess we’ll just have to have a runoff.

Susan Hutchison officially kicked off her campaign for King County Executive yesterday at a press conference where she made cutting the Business and Occupation Tax the centerpiece of her plan for fixing county government. Which is curious because A) cutting tax revenues seems a counterintuitive means of dealing with King County’s growing revenue shortfall, and B) King County doesn’t levy a B&O tax.

The best comeback of the day came from one of her opponents, Rep. Ross Hunter, the chair of the House Finance Committee, the committee from which a B&O tax cut would originate:

“If Hutchinson wants to change the B&O threshold she should run for the Legislature, not King County Executive.”

It’s good to see Hutchison finally talking specifics, but I mean, really… is this the best she can do? So intent on being the pro-business candidate she’s reduced to focusing on taxes the county doesn’t even charge?

Look, I’m all for local elected officials taking the lead in advocating for our region in Olympia—we could certainly use more of that around here—and I’m the first to tell you that the B&O tax is a ridiculous, 75-year-old kluge that disadvantages small businesses and startups. But adjusting the B&O threshold does little to address the broader problem with the way we tax businesses in Washington state, and does absolutely nothing to fix county government.

At best, this whole theme is just clever electioneering, allowing Hutchison to campaign as a tax-cutter while pushing a proposal that wouldn’t actually reduce revenues to a county government already struggling in the grip of the Great Recession. At worst, this focus shows a lack preparedness for coping with the immediate problems at hand, and a vague (if any) understanding of our broader tax structure mess, and the central, historical role the B&O tax plays within it.

Of course, we can never have a real conversation about fixing the B&O tax until the business community comes to the table to talk about the more rational corporate and/or personal income tax that would inevitably replace it. If Hutchison wants to take the lead on that effort, I’ll gladly reevaluate my opinion of her as a political lightweight.

But I’m not holding my breath.

The “slippery slope.” It’s a favorite argument of reform opponents everywhere, from all segments of the ideological spectrum, but one which has been particularly exercised by Republicans in recent years in arguing against any number of reforms.

“It’s a slippery slope,” we were told for years by those who blocked legislation to extend our anti-discrimination laws to gays and lesbians. This seemingly innocuous civil rights legislation was an integral part of a calculated gay agenda, opponents insisted, that would inevitably lead to gay marriage, or worse. Likewise, when some state senators dared to even broach the idea of a high-earners income tax this past session—perhaps merely a percent or two on incomes over $1 million—Republicans dutifully warned against the slippery slope that would inevitably lead to a broad based income tax with higher rates and lower income thresholds.

And now that President Obama appears to be leaning toward a “public option” as a lynchpin of his health care reform proposal, opponents are of course trotting out the slippery slope rhetoric one more time, arguing that merely offering consumers the option of buying into a government run health insurance plan takes us an unsteady step toward an inevitable tumble into (gasp) “socialized medicine.”

And you know what? They’re absolutely right.

Modest reforms such as these do serve as slippery slopes toward more substantive policy initiatives, at least if done right. Indeed, that, for the most part, is the intent of their backers.

For more than two decades Washington Republicans steadfastly held off gay civil rights legislation, but within a few years of its passage a series of incremental expansions of domestic partner benefits has created same-sex marriage rights here in virtually everything but name. And the name will come too, not much further down the line. That was the strategy, and it’s working.

Likewise, there are many tax reform advocates like me who couldn’t care less which income tax variation is first to make it onto the books, as long as it can stand up to a vote of the people. A millionaire’s tax? Fine by me, even if it doesn’t generate much money. For I fervently believe that once Washingtonians become accustomed to a personal income tax, rates will creep up, and the exemption creep down, adding a broader based income tax to our revenue portfolio.

And of course, the health insurance companies should fear a government run public option, for if they can’t compete—ie, they can’t provide comparable coverage at a comparable price—the market will inevitably move toward the single payer-like model they dread most.

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.

Only a decade ago a strong majority of voters opposed gay marriage, but today, not so much. The more we normalize the so-called “gay lifestyle”… the more we become comfortable with our friends and family and neighbors living openly gay lives with all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy, the more we shrug “so what” at the notion of teh gays calling their state sanctioned unions “marriage” too. This slippery slope is what folks like State Sen. Ed Murray counted on when they embraced the incrementalist strategy that has been so successful in Washington state. There was nothing dishonest or deceitful about it, and as we’ll learn by the imminent failure of Referendum 71, the voting public has slid at least as far down that slope as the state legislature.

And neither should the public fear the slippery slope of tax reform in Washington state. Would most backers of a high-earners income tax like to see higher rates and lower income thresholds? Sure, but since every tax increase inevitably comes before the people via referendum or initiative, it makes absolutely no sense to get too far ahead of voters. Start with 2% on household incomes over $1 million, and eventually we’ll inch toward 3% on incomes over $250,000. After that, who knows, though with voters holding a veto, I doubt we’d ever see the household income threshold fall much below $150,000, (nor would I personally support such a low threshold without substantial reforms elsewhere in our tax structure.)

The point is, the slippery slope isn’t something imposed on an unsuspecting public, but rather the natural trajectory of public opinion in response to well crafted, well executed public policy. You see, the reason insurance companies and their surrogates oppose the public option—the reason they fear it to be a slippery slope—is that they’re afraid it will work. And that when we see that it can work, and that it can provide more access and equal or better care at a lower cost than the private sector, that voters will demand an expansion of this program too.

Publicola has been giving ink (pixels?) to one health care advocate’s disappointment with Darcy Burner’s performance as Executive Director of ProgressiveCongress.org. Okay, fair enough. But as long we’re critiquing HA’s favorite twice-failed congressional candidate, I thought I’d give voice to one of Darcy’s most prominent fans, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation:

When it comes to the big issues of our time — like healthcare, energy and climate change, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and building a more just economy — I’ve long believed it will require a strong inside-outside strategy to push progressive solutions through Congress. That’s why I was so pleased when Darcy Burner was recently named Executive Director ofProgressiveCongress.org. (Full disclosure: I’m a board member.)

The organization’s purpose is to bring together progressives both inside and outside of Congress to craft strong policies and work cooperatively to implement them. Burner knows the grassroots, netroots, and political landscape as well as anyone, and her close Congressional races in Washington state against a Republican incumbent in 2006 and 2008 are a testament to that fact. A former Microsoft manager, she was also the architect of the “Responsible Plan to End the War In Iraq“.

Vanden Heuvel pretty much kvells over what Darcy has achieved at ProgressiveCongress.org in her few weeks on the job at the startup organization.

Last month, ProgressiveCongress.org asked people to submit and vote on questions regarding healthcare reform via its website. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) then answered the questions on the House floor, where proceedings are broadcast on C-SPAN and entered into the Congressional Record.

The results exceeded all expectations.

Tens of thousands of people responded and Caucus members were “very enthusiastic” about “having more direct interaction with normal Americans out there who are interested in [these] issues.” Then this past week there were approximately 47,000 votes on which Energy Bill questions to ask — a response Burner called “unbelievable.” (Caucus members answered those questions on the floor this past Thursday and video will soon be available.)

“This was an experiment,” Burner said. “My tech background tells me you try ten things, eight of them will fail, and the other two will succeed. The catch-though, is you can never predict ahead of time which two things it’s going to be. So, this being our first foray in trying to connect some of the progressive grassroots to the Caucus… it has succeeded spectacularly.”

This is exactly the kind of creative experimentation people can expect from Burner and ProgressiveCongress as it works to connect progressives outside of the beltway with those on the inside — leveraging the strength of both.

And this is exactly the kind of creative experimentation that got netroots progressives so excited about Darcy’s potential in Congress.

I don’t think Josh or Sandeep or most in the legacy media ever really grokked the Darcy thing, preferring to write it off as some kinda naive self-deception on the part of the netroots, or even worse, a cult of personality. Oh, please.

I like Darcy well enough, and consider her a friend, but her quirky eggheadedness doesn’t exactly inspire a cult-like devotion, and to be honest… ideologically… she’s rarely the most progressive person in the room. No, what we saw in Darcy was something we see in ourselves: the passion, creativity, and willingness to fail that is so often missing in a political culture that at times appears to be totally defined and constrained by the electoral cycle.

(And, oh yeah, she’s smart. Damn smart. I don’t hear anybody saying that about Dave Reichert.)

It would have been exciting to see how well those qualities served her in Congress.  And I guess, her service there will be exciting, if in a slightly different capacity.

The poll has closed, and there were no surprises.

I listed all 12 state House incumbents from districts touching Seattle, Democrats all, and asked which was most deserving of a serious challenger. Of course Speaker Frank Chopp came out way ahead with 28% of the vote (though being deserving of a challenge and being even the teeniest-tiniest bit vulnerable to one are two different things).

But of more interest was the trio of Sharon Tomiko Santos, Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney, who finished well ahead of the rest of the pack in a near dead heat of 13% apiece. These are the three names I hear come up most often when the topic is raised amongst Seattle’s politiscenti, and these were the three names you voted for most. Again, no surprise there.

That said, a glance at the results does show an interesting pattern. Yeah, sure, after Chopp, the four highest vote-getters are women, with Rep. Eileen Cody scoring a distant fifth place behind our winning trio, but I don’t think gender is the major factor it at first appears. Rather, the five names at the top of the list also happen to be the Seattle incumbents who have served the longest in the House, accumulating an impressive 68 years of service between them, compared to only 27 years total for the other seven representatives.

	Votes	Pct.	Years
Frank Chopp	162	28%	15
Sharon Tomiko Santos	79	13%	11
Mary Lou Dickerson	75	13%	15
Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney	74	13%	12
Eileen Cody	44	8%	15
Jamie Pedersen	42	7%	3
Reuven Carlyle	39	7%	1
Scott White	19	3%	1
Eric Pettigrew	17	3%	7
Bob Hasegawa	14	2%	5
Zack Hudgins	11	2%	7
Sharon Nelson	10	2%	3

Perhaps Santos, Dickerson and Kenney’s position near the top of the list really is due to job performance. Or perhaps it merely reflects their years of incumbency, and a sense that Seattle Dems are growing impatient with legislators who after years of service have failed to deliver the progressive reforms we want and need.

But I’m not sure it matters.

Eliminating Chopp as an outlier, we’ll pit Santos, Dickerson and Kenney against each other in a general election of sorts later this week, to determine who is the best target for a serious challenge. But coming up first, we’ll do the same for the four Seattle state senators up for reelection in 2010.

UPDATE:
Apparently, the poll didn’t close quite when I thought it closed, and the numbers have changed a touch since I wrote this post, but not enough to change the general results.