HorsesAss.Org

Eleven Republican state senators filed a bill yesterday, SB 6883, that would bar legislators from collecting a per diem during the coming special session, which I suppose might be taken as a serious attempt to protect the interests of taxpayers, if not for the fact that its last-minute filing ignores both Senate rules and the Washington State Constitution.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 36: WHEN BILLS MUST BE INTRODUCED.
No bill shall be considered in either house unless the time of its introduction shall have been at least ten days before the final adjournment of the legislature, unless the legislature shall otherwise direct by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, said vote to be taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the journal, or unless the same be at a special session.

I heard  Sen. Joe Zarelli, SB 6883’s prime sponsor, on the radio this morning attacking majority Democrats for wasting the 60 days they had, yet I’m not really sure how filing a symbolic bill that can’t be considered helps to explicate matters during the busy final days of the regular session? Republicans complain that they have been excluded from crucial budget negotiations, but if this is the sort of “constructive” role they hoped to have played, it’s easy to see why.

Regardless, it doesn’t take an act of the legislature to pass up the $90 a day legislators are reimbursed to cover housing, food, travel and all other expenses incurred during session. So I would hope my friends in the Olympia press corps might ask Senators Zarelli, Carrell, Holmquist, Becker, Stevens, Morton, Parlette, Honeyford, Brandland, King and Hewit if they’re just, you know, grandstanding, or if they’re actually willing to set an example for the rest of their colleagues by voluntarily declining the meager compensation that is their due?

I (we) am (are) even more of a threat when logged into Facebook. Click here.

From an infamous, leaked, 2005 Citigroup memo, declaring the U.S. the world’s leading plutonomy:

[T]he top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of incme of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie! Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) — the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.

The gist of Citigroup’s analysis is that its clients should invest in the type of things that the top 1% consume — “toys for the wealthy” — because economically, the rest of us don’t really matter.

In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or the “U.K. consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.

Likewise, there is no such thing as a “Washington taxpayer” either.

On average, Washington is a relatively low tax state, ranking only 35th nationally as a percentage of personal income, even according to the conservative Tax Foundation. But due to the highly regressive nature of our sales tax reliant tax structure — the most regressive in the nation — this burden is distributed incredibly unevenly, with the bottom 20% of households, those earning less than $20,000 a year, paying an average of 17.3% of their income in state and local taxes, while the top 1% of households, those earning over $537,000 a year, pay only 2.6%.

This is, of course, class warfare, and as billionaire investor Warren Buffet is famous for saying, his class is winning. And his is the class who the editors at the Seattle Times defend.

Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but when the headline of this morning’s Seattle Times editorial asks “Does Washington state want a sales-tax rate higher than L.A.’s?“, the only reasonable response I can muster is “What the fuck?”

In Seattle, the total general rate is already 9.5 percent. That is higher than New York City’s rate of 8.875 percent and the same as San Francisco’s. If Seattle’s rate goes to 9.8 percent it will be higher than Los Angeles’ 9.75 percent or Chicago’s 9.75 percent, effective July 1.

Raising the state portion of the sales tax to 6.8 percent would likely make Seattle’s rate the highest of any major city in the United States. We think people will notice. We think this will hurt investment, commerce and job creation here.

Yeah, well, we think that people who invest in job creation will notice the entire tax and business climate… you know like the fact that on top of the sales tax, Chicagoans pay a 3% income tax while Los Angelenos pay a top personal rate of 10.3%. Of course, here in Washington, we have no state income tax.

We think people will notice that on every single ranking of business climates, from Forbes Magazine to the conservative Tax Foundation, Washington consistently ranks near the top of the list, while California is buried near the bottom. Likewise, we think that people who look at tax rates when making the decision where to locate their home or business might notice that Washington’s state and local tax “burden” consistently ranks in the bottom two quintiles nationwide, while California ranks in the top.

The point is, the Times’ editors… they can’t have it both fucking ways!

They can’t argue against adding an income tax to the revenue mix by claiming it will turn us into another California, while at the same time bitching that our sales tax — a tax on which we rely for the bulk of our state revenue — now approaches that of, well, California.

Note to Times: we have one of the highest combined sales tax rates in the nation because we have no income tax! Yet when Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown proposed slashing the sales tax by a penny — a better than 10% cut in a Seattleite’s annual sales tax bill — and replacing it with a 4.5% income tax on only the top 1% of wage earners (less than half what they would pay in California), you decried it as an “awful idea.”

Again… what the fuck?

Well, the fuck is that the Times simply opposes all taxes, under any circumstances, for any reason, and all their mock-authoritative sniping on the subject is just sophistry, pure and simple. That’s why the Times only selectively picks at the bits and pieces of our spending and revenue system, and never, ever, ever debates the tax structure as a whole. For to actually talk about taxes in any meaningful way, might just undermine their publisher’s entire political agenda.

Please join us tonight for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by even earlier and enjoy some dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 344 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

Honestly, I’m as much of a cultural elitist as the next guy, but is this really the best use of Seattle Center’s precious open space?

A plan to turn part of the Seattle Center grounds into exhibit space for glass artist Dale Chihuly is generating controversy after gliding along quietly for months.

The plan would use the Center’s existing Fun Forest arcade building, plus much of the open space where kiddie rides now stand, to create 44,000 square feet of exhibit space for Chihuly’s work. Patrons would have to pay to enter the building, but some works would be installed outside, where the public could view them for free. The site would include an “art garden” and “glass house” separate from the building, as well as a gift shop and café inside.

As a divorced father with a young child, the Seattle Center was a bit of a mecca for us. Between the Children’s Museum and the Science Center and the various rotating events at the Center House and elsewhere, there was a several year span when my daughter and I probably visited the Seattle Center at least once a month. And yes, the Fun Forest was a regular part of our outings, and, in fact, often the highlight for my adrenaline-addicted, roller-coaster-loving little girl.

Personally, my preference would be to keep the Fun Forest, as tacky and cheesy and déclassé as it might be. But if the economics don’t support it, do we really have to convert the space into yet another hangout for latte-sipping yuppies? I mean, Chihuly is great and all that, but he already has a fantastic museum in nearby Tacoma, plus several excellent public installations throughout Seattle. But what we don’t have in our city, as evidenced by the hordes of young families who already crowd the Center in good and bad weather alike, are enough great spaces for children to be children.

So here’s a rather simple idea: rather than converting the Fun Forest into yet another high-priced museum (for the cost of our combined tickets to the EMP, for example, my daughter could have gone on 15 rides), why not convert the space into the nation’s most kick-ass public playground?

Think about it: climbing toys, ball pits, zip lines, slides, swings and fun stuff like that, part open to the sky and part covered (it sometimes rains in Seattle, you know) and all of it attached to an indoor/outdoor cafe where parents can keep an eye on their kids while relaxing with a cup of coffee or a civilized glass of wine. A destination where families can hang out together, instead of yet another place to just, you know, look at art, if you’re willing and able to pay the price of admission.

Seattle’s a great city, but it isn’t exactly family-friendly, and we sure as hell don’t make it any family-friendlier by replacing an amusement park with yet another museum. A kick-ass playground is what this city really needs — a huge, outrageous, jaw-dropping, eye-popping, whimsical, indoor/outdoor play zone. And the Seattle Center’s dingy old Fun Forest is the perfect place to build it.

Rep. Eric Massa, D-NY, who just resigned yesterday amidst charges of sexual harassment, and who went insane on a New York radio station over the weekend, is supposed to appear on the Glenn Beck cable television show today. Some righties think this will be the end for all Democrats!

Er, maybe not so much. The Washington Post is reporting:

Former Rep. Eric Massa has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office, according to three sources familiar with the probe.

The allegations surrounding the New York Democrat date back at least a year, and involve “a pattern of behavior and physical harassment,” according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment.

So yes, Massa described himself as a progressive, but he is also an ex-Republican from a very conservative district, so who the hell knows what makes the guy tick? Was his supposed progressivism just an act during a period of wide-spread dismay over Republican actions and policies? Don’t know.

What we do know is that, in an era of spectacular crash and burns, this one is pretty strange, and so of course Glenn Beck would try to glom on. Beck doesn’t need to worry about his credibility, because he doesn’t have any, at least among anyone remotely serious about achieving better governance.

This sorry episode would seem to highlight, with an exclamation point, the need to make sure candidates are thoroughly vetted before progressives support them. That’s easier said than done, of course, because ordinary folks aren’t in the business of running detective agencies. But you can tell a lot about people by what they do and who their supporters are, which is at least a starting point.

Yeah, all I can say is that just when you think American politics can’t get any more disgusting, seamy and ridiculous, it somehow does. It’s small wonder that regular folks, going to school, jobs and taking care of their families, often throw their hands up in disgust. The irony, of course, is that the more regular people check out, the more power is ceded to those who stand to extract even more power and money from this completely fucked up political system, awash in money and moral corruption.

Nobody walking on this earth is perfect, and demanding purity and perfection from politicians is silly. But the sorry collection of freaks, sadists, perverts, criminals and liars that have dominated headlines for the last twenty years or more, in both major parties, is a sad testament to our inability to govern ourselves. We need to kick the damn walls down and get some more halfway normal people in office. I know there are plenty of them already in office, but they seem to need some help right about now.

Just sayin’.

On the one hand, the Seattle Times’ editors have long complained about aggressive panhandlers, some of them “mentally deranged,” while explicitly praising candidates from Mark Sidran to  Joe Mallahan for taking a tough stance on the issue. Yet how does the Times propose to balance our state budget while raising as little additional revenue as possible…?

The General Assistance-Unemployable program has to go. This program, which provides a temporary safety net for people not working because of physical and mental disabilities, has been on just about every list of proposed cuts year after year. And every year, House Speaker Frank Chopp saves it. He needs to give it up.

Now, I’m not suggesting that all panhandlers are disabled, mentally or otherwise, or even a vast majority (maybe they are, maybe they aren’t… I really don’t know), but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to intuit a correlation between our society’s willingness to take care of the disabled, and the number of beggars on the street. Visit a strong social-welfare state like Denmark and you’ll have a tough time finding yourself a panhandler, whereas they’ve always been part of the urban landscape here in the ruggedly individualistic Northwest, home of the original Skid Row.

I know there are those who feel little obligation to those less fortunate — after all, I didn’t make the choice to become disabled, so why should I pay taxes to take care of those who did? But morality aside, there is a simple utilitarian equation between the strength of our social safety net and the number of beggars and homeless people on the streets. As harsh as it may be to propose to eliminate GAU, while addressing the inevitable social consequences via law enforcement, it is also inefficient, and amounts to little more than a shift of burden from the state budget to the local, while undoubtedly multiplying the cost in human suffering.

But I guess that’s what the Times means when they talk about “compromise.”

Tim Burgess is pushing a measure to outlaw panhandling near ATM’s, or parking meters. One of the reasons he says that people from the rest of the city and elsewhere are afraid to come downtown. “The visitors do not feel comfortable walking from their hotels, to the market, or catching the bus without being approached by many different panhandlers and street people along their route.” That may be, but I doubt that people asking for change near parking meters (aka, everywhere downtown) is really among the top concerns of downtown residents.

In the couple years I’ve lived downtown, I’ve seen countless things worse than yellie beggars who are pretty much anywhere on the street. And while much of it is already illegal, I think the city should probably deal with open drug dealing, and use, prostitution, late night noise, and drunks spilling out of clubs yelling “Wooooooooooooooooo” and getting into fights from before midnight to well past closing time on a Friday or Saturday night. (Just to be clear, I love living downtown, but there are problems.) Talking to other Belltown residents about the proposed law, the reaction has usually been somewhere between “it’s a war on homelessness” to “I guess it’s worth trying.” Personally, I’m against it, but not terribly so, but I haven’t heard anyone say that dealing with beggars is a high priority.

So while I applaud Burgess for at least trying, I still don’t feel represented on the council. I know, I know everybody represents me, and if I want something done, let someone on the relevant committee know. But I’m relatively well informed, and I have no idea who sits on what committee, or who among all of my supposed representatives on the city council would be receptive to downtown issues. I’d really prefer to have my council member, rather than having to guess who might be the most helpful when none of them seem to be.

There are two ways to look at state Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown’s income tax proposal. I suppose you could, as her office has done, brand it a “high earners income tax,” and in many ways, it is just that. Or, it would also be quite accurate to describe it as a “flat-tax,” the mythical creature of fair taxation to which all righties aspire. (At least, those who believe in taxation at all.)

After all, Sen. Brown’s proposal would impose a single tier flat-tax of 4.5 percent, with a single personal exemption of $200,000 per individual, or $400,000 per household. Those earning, say, $40,000,000 a year would be taxed at the same exact rate as those earning $400,001. Everybody gets the same exemption, and everybody pays the same rate on the remainder; what could be fairer or flatter than that?

Sure, the Brown proposal includes an awfully big personal exemption, but lots of taxes include exemptions. Our federal income tax includes a sizable exemption, as does our state B&O tax. Indeed, the conservative Washington Policy Center has argued for raising the B&O exemption to $200,000 or even higher for new businesses. Indeed, it’s tempting to call tax exemptions a downright conservative concept.

So I have a hard time understanding why the Seattle Times and other conservative critics so vehemently oppose Sen. Brown’s classically conservative flat-tax proposal?

When the state legislature suspended Initiative 960’s blatantly unconstitutional two-thirds requirement for passing tax increases —a measure approved by a mere 51% margin in a low-turnout, off-year election — the Seattle Times editorial board excoriated lawmakers for violating the sacred will of the people.

“Surely the people wanted it that way,” the Times insisted, citing both long-past measures and a recent made-for-TV opinion survey, conveniently assuming that populist pose they are wont to assume when, you know, it conveniently suits their purpose.

Yet the Times’ faith in the intelligence and good will of voters apparently only goes so far, for while they’ll defend to the death a tax-limiting measure approved by barely 20% of registered voters, should our legislators even dare to publicly discuss the notion of putting an income tax measure on the ballot for an up or down popular vote, well, that would be a “truly awful idea.”

The tax measure is a mix of desperation and splashes of bribery and extortion … even asking the question assumes voters are chumps.

Huh. Then why so worried? If the will of the people is so sacred, and their say at the ballot so well informed, what is the harm in putting this proposal before voters? I mean, if the idea – a 4.5% income tax on households earning over $400,000 a year, in exchange for a 1 cent  cut in the state sales tax — is so “truly awful,” voters can be trusted to reject it, right?

Right?

I mean, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a  knife. On the one hand, the Times lavishly defends I-960, a measure whose most prominent provision explicitly forces lawmakers to put proposed tax increases on the ballot, while on the other hand, the Times viciously ridicules Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown for proposing to do exactly that. Could the Times’ editors possibly be bigger hypocrites?

I’m not sure what the Times really thinks of Washington voters, but there’s little question they assume their readers to be chumps.

When Henry Wooten was arrested in Tyler Texas for smoking a joint, police found a couple baggies with 4.6 ounces of marijuana on him. And because he was caught within 1000 feet of a day care center, that landed Wooten a 35-year prison sentence.

A post at Dallas/Ft. Worth NORML explains:

This is, more or less, a warning for those who would openly defy Marijuana Laws in Texas. The Texas Justice system is a series of policies designed to incarcerate people, not rehabilitate or help them in anyway. Henry’s case is unique because his possession limit was on the cusp of being a misdemeanor. In Texas, it is a misdemeanor to possess four ounces or less. One to two ounces is a class B, and three to four is a class A misdemeanor. Henry was found guilty of possessing four ounces to one pound, a felony which could be 2 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. However, since Henry was in a “drug free zone”, Smith County Assistant District Attorney Richard Vance had asked for the jury to give Wooten a sentence of 99 years. Do you think he got off easy?

Or perhaps we should phrase that question from a different perspective: do you think Texas taxpayers got off easy? Will society benefit from the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be spent to imprison Wooten for the next three and a half decades, for the simple charge of possessing a substance we could all easily grow in our backyards?

Yeah, this is one of those extreme, hyperbolic examples, but our prisons are filled with these extreme, hyperbolic examples, in Washington state and throughout the nation. Why? Because our drug laws simply don’t make any sense. And that’s why we need a more Sensible Washington.

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky. It was Cottage Grove, Oregon.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Exodus 23:9
“Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.”

Discuss.