Tom Foley’s memorial service was today. I haven’t had the chance to watch it yet, but if you want you can see it here. I do love the phrase Titan of Democracy; I think that really sums him up.

Washington State Governor Jay Inslee (D) called Foley a “Titan of Democracy” during the service.

“He was a representative of the best the state of Washington had to offer,” added Gov. Inslee.

You can see President Obama’s speech at the DC memorial here. Darryl has already memorialized him here on HA.

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

I would like a little more context than just complaining:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Happy Halloween

– Nevada Republican would allow slavery

– The Chamber of Commerce is the worst.

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

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

– Your guide to celebrating Dia de los Muertos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to tack on to what Darryl wrote last night, as this blog will testify, Tim Eyman is just unpopular. Oh sure, people like tax cuts and don’t like red light cameras, so when the focus is off Tim Eyman and on those things, he can win some elections. But he’s also an embarrassment who has cost the state so much.

And of course the actual issues are also not on Eyman’s side. People don’t particularly want signature gathering everywhere, or all the time. I’ve done signature gathering for various things, and people are mostly cool about it, but it is taking some of their time. Making that more intrusive and for a longer amount of time can be a problem.

– A grand bargain is probably a bad idea politically as well as on policy grounds.

– If any of the attorneys have any opinion on the judge who was admonished for not wanting to perform same sex marriages, I’d like to hear it.

– Lindsey Graham is pretty terrible. Doy.

– The deadline for early applications for The Institute of a Democratic Future is coming up. I haven’t done the program, but for everyone I know who did, it has been a positive experience.

– Oh no Canada

– The of course teens should have access to condoms argument isn’t new ground, but Lindy West makes the argument about as humorously as anyone will.

– This Halloween, you could be sexy capitalism.

When I first heard what the West Coast governors (CA, OR, WA, & BC) were going to get together to kick climate change’s ass, um more or less, I was pretty excited. I’m not sure we came away with all that much, but maybe.

Through the Action Plan, the leaders agreed that all four jurisdictions will account for the costs of carbon pollution and that, where appropriate and feasible, link programs to create consistency and predictability across the region of 53 million people. The leaders also committed to adopting and maintaining low carbon fuel standards in each jurisdiction. In a joint statement, the leaders committed to “meaningful coordination and linkage between states and provinces across North America.”

“This Action Plan represents the best of what Pacific Coast governments are already doing, and calls on each of us to do more—together—to create jobs by leading in the clean energy economy, and to meet our moral obligation to future generations,” said Governor Inslee. “Each of the governments here is already taking bold steps on climate change; by joining forces, we will accomplish even more,” Inslee said.

[…]

Under the Action Plan, California and British Columbia will maintain their existing carbon pricing programs along with their respective clean fuel standards, while Oregon and Washington have committed to moving forward on a suite of similar policies. The leaders further agreed to harmonize their 2050 greenhouse gas emission targets and develop mid-term targets where needed to set a path toward long-term reductions.

I don’t want to downplay it, exactly. It’s certainly better than not having an action plan. But I’m not sure that this is going to amount to much in the end. I don’t know how much Washington can do with our jackass legislature. And it’s great that British Columbia and California are committed to doing something, but that something seems to be what they were already doing.

– On Friday I had a piece making fun of The Seattle Times for a guest editorial they had poo pooing these kids today in downtown Seattle. But apparently, there are kids today in downtown Olympia too. Horror!

– The new health care law is more than just a website. And people are actually getting insurance.

– The Cruelty of “Medical Necessity”

– RIP Lou Reed

– Just re-read this short bit by Cortazar over the weekend, and you should too.

Dominic Holden has a link to this piece of shit article in The Seattle Times. Basically, someone moved Downtown recently after being the president of Seattle Pacific and living on campus for almost two decades. They then decided that Downtown is in decline. From what, I’m not really sure since they lived on a college campus down by the Ship Canal for 17 years. It’s overwrought and horrible.

I mean I moved downtown 6 years or so ago, and I had a bit of a culture shock too, but I’m always a bit surprised about things like this:

As my wife and I walk the streets from our new home, we spot the drug deals in the shadows of reeking alleys. We see the vacant eyes of the mentally disturbed, helpless folks dumped on our streets. We see the ravages of addiction sprawled on our sidewalks.

We navigate our way uncomfortably among teenagers who occupy Westlake Park, hanging out with their pit bulls, backpacks and skateboards, lately with their babies, freely smoking their now-legal marijuana. With utter dismay we read the stories of random violence.

I don’t care how Jesus-y SPU is, if you lived on a campus for over a decade and a half, you’re not allowed to be surprised by marijuana use somewhere. Seriously, what the fuck is he comparing it to? I mean I’ve lived in the suburbs and shock, there’s drug use and babies existed (?!) there too. People have troubles (and babies???) no matter where you go, sometimes.

But Downtown is great. I’m glad that I can pick up a Real Change as well as shop at Pike Place (although there are Real Change vendors in the suburbs, I’ve seen them with my own two eyes and everything). The crush of humanity — all sorts of humanity — is what makes cities great.

Westlake Park, to take his example, is a place where there’s too much drug dealing, I agree! But I’ve also taken a book or a paper and just read. There’s a playground where kids and parents are able to go, and it still manages to work even though sometimes people near by are smoking a joint. You can catch a bus, and usually not be hassled. Downtown doesn’t lose its vibrancy because there are all sorts of people there, that’s what makes it vibrant.

Joel Connelly has a great piece on the Farm Bill, and what the House GOP’s failure to pass it means for Washington.

The defining program for American agriculture expired on Sept. 30. It should have been renewed by Congress last year. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill by a 68-32 vote earlier this year. The House Agriculture Committee cooperated and produced a bill. But it was stalled by a revolt in the House Republican Caucus by members demanding deep cuts in food stamps.

“Those are the same people who wanted to shut down the government,” Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in disgust Thursday.

Cantwell and Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, held a briefing in a cold Seattle warehouse to discuss the consequences.

I am struck again and again with the cruelty of the GOP position. The fact that they’re willing to sacrifice so much so that they can, what, harm people on Food Stamps? It’s so far away from the ideal that we’re all in this together.

I’m generally of the belief that primary challenges are good for the side that makes them. There’s free media, and by virtue of who usually issues a challenge, when the incumbent survives, they can point to it in the general and say how they’re not extreme like those people over there. Over at Blue Oregon, Kari Chisholm has a piece on a brand-new primary challenge to the Eastern Oregon Republican representative.

As I said last month when this challenge started to materialize, stranger things have happened. Walden’s got farmers mad at him for failing to pass a Farm Bill. Walden’s got the Club for Growth mad at him for supporting higher spending in the stimulus. And now, he’s surely got Wall Street mad at him for voting in favor of default.

Sure. If this is a chance to highlight how bad he’s been, by all means people should use it. And of course if the possibility helps attract a good Democrat who can actually put up a challenge, even better.

C’mon folks, let’s do a little crowd-sourced brainstorming. Who are plausible Democratic candidates for Congress in OR-2?

– Mars Hill break new ground in lying for Jesus.

– Assorted Thoughts on the Seattle/Tacoma UFCW non-strike

– “Tyson’s story,” and it is indeed quite a story, is hardly an “American original.” The powerful man who spends his life harming women, only to be publicly rehabilitated again and again, is about as routine as American stories come.

– There’s a piece in Grant’s memoir where he says that if the founding generation were alive they would think that instant communication across the Atlantic via telegraph was witchcraft. This Oliver Willis piece is a nice thing along those lines.

– Here’s an Indiegogo campaign for an academy to train women in software development right here in Seattle. Given our worst in the nation gender gap and reliance on tech for our economy, this seems like an important thing.

– The Affordable Art Fair looks like fun.

Tom at Seattle Bike Blog reports on an event tomorrow for bike lighting.

Bike lights are not optional. Aside from being required by law (technically, only front light and rear reflector are required), lights are vital if you are going to be visible to folks driving, biking and walking at night and sun-in-the-eyes situations.

Studies have shown that people on bikes naturally feel more visible to others than they actually are. Unfortunately, this leads people to a false sense of security about biking without lights (or with very poor lights).

[…]

The city and Commute Seattle want to help you out. They are hosting an event Thursday from 4-6 p.m. at 5th and Stewart.

It’s a good chance to get the right gear. With the days getting shorter, and the commute in the dark — as well as this fog — it’ll be more and more important to be light up properly.

As promised, here’s a thread about the Seattle Mayor’s race. For the first time that I can remember, I’m undecided on who to vote for in a big race like this. I got my ballot and filled most of it out, but still haven’t filled either mayoral bubble. I’m definitely leaning toward McGinn, but I like both of them quite a bit. Four years ago, when Ed Murray was considering a write in campaign, I wrote that I would support him if he ran because I liked him the best, but that I hoped he didn’t because he would probably take more votes away from McGinn than Mallahan and that I was worried that a self-funded person who was the more conservative would be able to win when he really shouldn’t. He didn’t run, and I eventually volunteered for McGinn’s election.

I really wasn’t particularly impressed with McGinn, but figured at least he wasn’t running a self-funded campaign on “TAXEZ BAD ME SMASH” and (after the post went up) unsure about abortion rights like Mallahan. I mean McGinn was saying the right things about transit and bikes, but everybody says the right things about them around election time, but usually they don’t do anything. He was also talking mostly about things that aren’t really the Mayor’s prerogative: education, broadband, and transit, and usually when people talk about those sorts of things and then get elected, they then ignore them.

Since then, they’ve both done things that I give high marks to. I’ve been surprised that I liked most of McGinn’s tenure as mayor (there are exceptions, like foot dragging on police reform and the Chihuly garden). He pushed a mostly reluctant City Council to put a doubling of the Families and Education Levy on the ballot, and it passed handily. There’s high speed Internet coming to much of the city.* He has also kept social services funded despite the recession and a tax cut from the council right before he took office.

Meanwhile, Ed Murray has cemented his already impressive legacy, passing marriage equality and shepherding it to a vote with a positive result. While he did preside over the loss of the Democrats’ caucus, I don’t really blame him for it. Rodney Tom hates Seattle and Tim Sheldon hates Seattle and gay people (to the extent he knows there’s a difference). So if the problem with him is that he’s from Seattle and gay, well that would be a dumb reason to be upset with him. Given the restraints, he has mostly kept the rest of the caucus from caving to the worst aspects of the GOP.

Finally, there are social issues. There’s some discussion that they’re off the table. And I agree neither of them is going to try zone abortion clinics out of the city or deny gay employees benefits, for example. They’re certainly closer on most of the defining social issues of the day than they are apart. But I have to say it’s been nice that Seattle has had four years where strippers and all ages music weren’t regularly being attacked from the mayor’s office. I hope that will be true of the next four years with Murray, but it’ll almost definitely be true with another four years of McGinn.

So that leaves two candidates I like quite a bit, and a campaign I’m the opposite of happy with, especially on Murray’s side. I don’t like all the third party money and I think it has been unnecessarily negative, and often not factual. Murray has courted the anti-transit and anti-bike people despite his record in the legislature being pretty good on those issues. Part of the reason I’ve been reluctant to decide is that it seems like everyone who has taken a side thinks that their flawed but pretty good lefty candidate is awesome and the other, flawed but pretty good lefty candidate is shit, and I’d rather not take that up. But I can’t really put off the decision any longer, and I’m going to have to fill in a bubble.

[Read more…]