HorsesAss.Org

“The only difference between you and Tim Eyman,” a prominent member of our state’s media/political complex once privately chided me, “is that Tim actually manages to get his measures on the ballot.  That’s why he’s taken seriously and you’re not.”

Ouch.

We weren’t talking about my recent advocacy for a high-earner’s income tax ballot measure, which apparently is now officially dead, but we could’ve been.  While a handful of state senators, a couple of representatives and one or two journalists deserve kudos for attempting to at least start a conversation on the issue, my posts were generally greeted in the halls of power with a dismissive roll of the eyes.  Washington voters will never approve an income tax, and my exhortations to the contrary did nothing but chip away at what little credibility I had.  Or so I’ve been told.

Regardless, I remain convinced that 2009 was the perfect political climate in which to put a high-earners income tax on the ballot—perhaps a unique confluence of reality and perception that won’t be there in 2010 or beyond—but barring the imminent donation of the half million dollars or so necessary to buy the requisite signatures between now and the July 3 deadline, my hypothesis will never be tested.

And that gets to the real difference between me and Tim in regards to our relative influence on Washington politics: the half million dollars or so necessary to get an initiative on the ballot.  There’s nothing particularly populist or credible about hiring signature gatherers; all it requires is the money.  And for the past several years Tim has relied on Woodinville investment banker Michael Dunmire to fund the bulk of his signature drives.

And why should Tim have all the fun?

So if you’re a rich liberal looking to make a splash in the political scene, have I got an initiative for you:  a 3-percent tax on incomes over $250,000/year, 5-percent on incomes over $1 million… combined with a full one-cent cut in the state sales tax.  No, it doesn’t raise much additional revenue for the state, but that’s the Legislature’s problem, not mine.  What it does do is make our state’s tax structure a little less regressive, while putting cash back in the pockets of 96-percent of voters.

Using a sugardaddy’s money to pander to voters… that’s apparently what gets Tim taken seriously.  And if it’s good enough for Tim, it’s good enough for me.

So, Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers has a Downs child who she clearly loves and cherishes and sees as “a special gift.”  Good for her, and good for her son.

But that still doesn’t give her the right to tell other women what to do with their uterus.

I mean, really, the very notion that raising a special needs child gives McMorris-Rodgers some sort of special authority to speak on the sanctity of life… well… it’s kinda offensive.  She made her choice, and other women should be equally free to make theirs.

Oregon critics of the CRC project, including Steve Duin at The Oregonian, continue the drumbeat that plans for a new bridge are too big and too ugly. From Duin’s column this morning:

The Columbia River Crossing design, of course, is boxed in by all manner of restrictions, including the ludicrous height limits that owe to the proximity of Vancouver’s podunk Pearson Air Field.

But the most daunting constraint, notes Metro Council President David Bragdon, “is the restriction on the imagination of the two state Departments of Transportation.

“You have two DOTs that are just driven to build huge slabs of concrete. That’s what they do. That’s what they’ve done for the last 40 years. They engineer the biggest, baddest thing they can, and think about the design later, the budget later, the community impacts later.”

I’m kind of wondering how long it will take Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard to respond to Duin’s slam on Pearson Air Field, an historic site that Pollard has made clear is a vital part of Vancouver’s heritage and downtown future.

[Read more…]

I’ve spent an awful lot of time criticizing the Legislature these past few weeks, and I’ve no apologies.  I put a lot of effort into helping to elect Democrats, and thus I have a special obligation to keep their feet to the fire once they’re in office.  But as frustrating and disappointing as the budget battle has been, there have been quite a few positive things to come out of this session, not the least of which is HB 1517, which finally reforms our states convoluted system for restoring voting rights to felons who have served their time.

For decades, Washington has been home to some of the nation’s most restrictive felon voting laws, which as of today have effectively disenfranchised over 167,000 otherwise eligible citizens.  As no less an authority than the American Correctional Association has long argued, felon disenfranchisement is “contradictory to the goals of a democracy, the rehabilitation of felons and their successful reentry to the community.”

Under HB 1517, felons may now register to vote once they have served their sentence and completed state supervised parole or probation. It wasn’t an easy vote for many Democrats, who are often made the victim of Republican efforts to label them as soft on crime, but it was the right thing to do.  And ironically, while our restrictive felon voting laws have long had a disproportionate impact on minority communities, Washington’s felon population is still overwhelmingly white, male and working class… the state GOP’s core demographic.

Amongst Rossiphiles, the felon voter is still a potent bogeyman.  But if there is anything positive to have come out of the GOP’s losing arguments in the 2004 gubernatorial election contest, it was the increased awareness of our undemocratic and unworkable felon disenfranchisement laws, and this new bill that reforms them.

Lots of volunteer opportunities this weekend and beyond:

* Seattle Parks

* King County Parks

Leave others in the comment thread.

When I wrote this morning about a House amendment that sticks Seattle taxpayers with potential cost overruns from the risky Big Bore tunnel, I suggested that “now is the time for Mayor Nickels and other local political leaders to send a clear message to Olympia” that if they change the deal, the deal is off.

Well, I didn’t hear what I wanted from Mayor Nickels, but we did get a quick response from challenger Mike McGinn, who in a press release today promised exactly that:

Michael McGinn today announced his opposition to the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement plan emerging in the Legislature.

“This deal keeps getting worse”, said McGinn. “As Mayor, I will not authorize the use of city tax dollars for the tunnel or associated cost overruns.”

In highlighting the riskiness of this project, McGinn points out that a bored tunnel of this size, 54 feet in diameter, has never been built anywhere in the world.  And that’s a financial risk that Seattle’s taxpayers, who voted overwhelmingly against a tunnel, should not be expected to bear on their own.

So… over one million Washingtonians vote to approve I-937 at the polls, and the Seattle Times editorial board argues that the House and the Senate should work together to amend it, because… well… I guess we the people didn’t really know what we were doing.

But, a mere 5,000 teabaggers (according to the Times’ own over-inflated count) stage a made for TV rally at the Capitol, and OMIGOD! Lawmakers can’t possibly consider raising taxes in the midst of such a widespread, populist tax rebellion!

Did I get that straight?

In reporting that Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles will hold a hearing on the high-earners income tax tomorrow in the Ways and Means Committee, the TNT’s Joe Turner adds…

I’m not sure what the purpose of holding a hearing will be…

Well Joe, um… maybe the purpose is to debate the merits of a high-earners income tax?

This, for me, is what has been most infuriating this session… the absolute refusal of most in the media and political establishment to even consider discussing the issue itself.  Here we are in the midst of our state’s worst economic and budgetary crisis since the Great Depression, and Kohl-Welles is being mocked for daring to discuss the highly regressive and inadequate tax structure that is at the heart of Washington’s long term budgetary problems.

Make the argument that it is a sound policy to tax our state’s poorest families at six times the rate we tax our wealthiest.  Explain why it is in the best interest of our citizens and our business community to stand by and watch our state government’s spending power gradually and steadily erode as we continue to rely on an ever shrinking portion of our economy to provide the bulk of state revenues.  Offer even a little bit of evidence to suggest that if we only ride out this recession, state revenues will ever return to pre-crisis levels, adjusted for population and inflation.

Go ahead… try to make an actual argument as to why the income tax is unfair, unworkable, and unrealistic, for chrisakes.  But no… you’d just rather mockingly dismiss it out of hand as an unserious proposal because voters rejected one iteration of it some thirty-five years ago.

My God.. there are two sides to the budget equation—expenditures and revenues—so why is it that the only responsible, reasonable and serious thing to do, is to debate the former while ignoring the latter?  Shame on all of you.

Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman was found dead this morning, the apparent victim of suicide by hanging.

So… how long before the righties start producing videos accusing Obama of complicity in Kellerman’s murder? Or is Kellerman just another victim of D.C.’s most notorious serial killers, the Clintons?

Don’t forget, the “will of the people” only counts when that will is expressed as anti-tax, anti-consumer and anti-worker sentiment intended to destroy things.

No worries about a special session to fix this!

The House passed the bill, HB 2363, on an 84-12 vote. It now goes to the Senate.

The raises were spelled out in Initiative 732. But they would be suspended through mid-2011 for school district employees, community and technical college academic employees and classified employees at technical colleges.

Obviously paying teachers enough money to afford extras like food and housing was a bad idea, because that would be constructive, not destructive.

So when citizens decide they want to support things like education, it doesn’t matter, the Legislature will just discard the program rather than work on the tax system. You don’t really hear crap about the “will of the people” now, because the only people who count are politicians, lobbyists and well-heeled contributors who can buy their way onto the ballot.

The suckers are the ordinary citizens who play by the rules, buying houses and goods they can actually afford, paying bills and taxes on time, expecting only some basic opportunities from the state like quality, affordable education.

But teachers and parents should vote for a regressive sales tax increase to fund health care this fall! Because it makes so much sense to lay people off, crowd classrooms, raise tuition and then ask for a regressive tax increase.

Good luck with that, Democrats, you’re going to need it.

“Why does Frank Chopp hate Seattle?” That’s the question Josh asks at Publicola after State Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36) showed him an amendment to the Viaduct Bill that pins potential cost overruns on the backs of Seattle taxpayers.

The amendment, sponsored by House transportation committee chair Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41, Bellevue, Factoria, Newcastle), says any cost overruns on the Viaduct tunnel project have to be paid by Seattle-area businesses—a standard for a state-funded project that Carlyle argued had never been applied to locals before. (Without any local accountability measures, for example, Rep. Carlyle pointed out, the state has spent $1.56 billion on 405.)

[…] Carlyle wasn’t simply standing up for his turf, though. He believed the amendment, if passed, would set a “dangerous precedent” that locals across the state could now be held accountable for cost overruns “on any bridge, ferry, roads, or building project.”

The “Big Bore” is the brain child of the oh so credible Discovery Institute, which, based on its profound respect for the sciences, promises that new and barely tested deep bore technology can dig the tunnel cheaper and faster than ever before possible.

Um… maybe.  But maybe not.  The deep bore tunnel is without a doubt the least studied Viaduct alternative from an engineering and a geological perspective, and yet it was quickly embraced by the powers that be after local voters and politicians appeared to be reaching a consensus on the much less sexy surface/transit option.

Surface/transit was also the least expensive option, for both the state and the city, and no doubt the easiest to accurately estimate costs, as we have a helluva lot more experience laying down asphalt than we do sending giant boring machines through downtown Seattle’s relatively unexplored substrata.  Discovery’s assurance’s aside, the Big Bore is by far the riskiest option in terms of potential cost overruns.  I’m loathe to bring up Boston’s infamous Big Dig, as I don’t subscribe to the notion that Americans have somehow lost the ability to engineer tunnels, but… well… shit happens.

And if shit happens, it should be the responsibility of the state to clean it up.  After all, it’s the Governor and the Legislature who put up the most resistance to the surface/transit option, and who eagerly sought out the Big Bore as a magically delicious alternative.  So why the hell should local taxpayers, who were already prepared to settle on a less expensive, less risky (and yes, less elegant) solution, pick up the tab should Discovery’s faith-based transportation plans turn out to be not all that intelligently designed?

We shouldn’t, and now is the time for Mayor Nickels and other local political leaders to send a clear message to Olympia that, if they change the terms of the deal on us, forcing us to pick up the costs of their potential blunders, then the deal is off.  Seattle has already agreed to pony up $1 billion toward the cost of replacing this state highway, but if this amendment sticks, placing all the risk on our backs, I say we put away our checkbook and tell our legislators to just go screw themselves.

Please join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm. Or stop by earlier for dinner.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIGHqeKG8Io[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 328 chapters of Drinking Liberally spread across the earth.

I’m still waiting for the Seattle Times editorial board to take me up on my 5,001 protester challenge.  I promise to bring 5,001 protesters to Olympia to rally on behalf of an income tax, if they promise to credulously editorialize in favor of our populist movement should we hit the turnout target.

Yeah, sure, I know that a mere 5,001 citizens out of a state population of over 6.5 million may not seem like much of a “movement,” but that’s still one more than the low bar set by the Times in regards to last week’s teabagger rally:

… when organizers get 5,000 people to come to Olympia on a workday, it is evidence of a strong feeling.

Funny thing is, the Times hasn’t always sold populism so cheap.  When 40,000 people peacefully marched in Seattle to protest WTO, only to be met with tear gas and billy clubs (and yes, the overwhelming majority of marchers were peaceful), the Times didn’t embrace the populism of the moment.  No, they demonized and ridiculed labor leaders and environmentalists for their “narrow point of view,” calling their message “shameless,” “dishonest,” “distorted, “canned,” and “99-percent fact free.”

When in years past, tens of thousands of people have turned out to protest education cuts or immigration policy or the Iraq war, where was the Times editorial arguing that this should be enough to stop lawmakers in their tracks?  Likewise, where is the populist embrace from the Times when labor manages to turn out teabagger-plus-sized crowds at the state Capitol?

Agreeing with the teabaggers is one thing.  The Times’ editors are entitled to their opinion.  But in light of the much larger rallies the ed board has either willfully ignored or contemptuously mocked, spinning this unimpressive made for TV event into some sort of populist rebellion is disingenuous at best, and delusional at worst.

I don’t generally follow Tacoma City Council races, but I’ll make an exception for Keven Rojecki, who recently announced his candidacy for an open seat.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet and talk with Keven on a number of occasions during my adventures in Olympia, where in his capacity as a legislative liaison for the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters (WSCFF) we have often found ourselves working the same side of important public policy issues.  Keven is also an active fire fighter, an 18-year veteran with the SeaTac Fire Department, and has served the past two years as Vice-Chair of the Washington State Gambling Commission.

I know nothing about Keven’s opponent—perhaps she’s just as qualified, I dunno—but I do know that Keven is exactly the kind of public servant we could use more of in electoral politics, so I wish him the best of luck.  And if you’re down in Olympia Thursday, you can wish him luck in person at a luncheon reception and fundraiser being held at the WSCFF headquarters:

Date:	Thursday, April 23, 2009
Time:	11:00am – 1:30pm
Location:	Washington State Council of Fire Fighters
Street:	1069 Adams Street SE
City/Town:	Olympia, WA

Ah well, it looks like the timid status quoists are in full spin mode.

Covering the on-again/off-again prospects of a tax increase measure, Austin Jenkins reports for both KUOW and Crosscut that as weak as public support is for a sales tax increase, an income tax fares even worse:

The sales tax garnered better than 50 percent support if it included a tax rebate for working families and if the money raised was used to support hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care programs. […]  The income tax proposal polled under 50 percent even if the money was dedicated to education and health care.

Huh?  That’s not what I heard.  And while I’m not sure I’ve seen the polling detail to which Jenkins refers, clearly, neither has he.

Or maybe I have. Here’s how Jenkins describes the poll in question:

I got my hands on a summary of the poll that was given to the Senate Democratic Caucus. It’s not the complete poll, and I don’t have a sample size or margin of error; however I believe 800 likely voters were polled. The poll was taken last week — right when people were filing their taxes and there were anti-tax demonstrations all over the country, including at the State Capitol in Olympia. The health care groups who paid for the poll say it was the “worst possible” week to be asking voters their mood on taxes.

Huh.  I too have seen a poll of 800 likely voters, conducted last week, the worst week possible for asking voters their mood on an income tax… although unlike Jenkins, who reports on a summary passed on to the Senate Dem Caucus, I got to see some of the actual details:

Three tenths of one percent sales tax for working families tax rebate and Health Care Trust Fund For Basic Health Plan
(Total Approve) =  40%
Definitely Approve: 16%
Probably Approve 17%
Lean Approve 8%
Lean Reject 4%
Probably Reject 12%
Definitely Reject 22%
Undecided 21%

3% state income tax on individuals making over $250K
(Total Approve) =  47%
Definitely Approve: 27%
Probably Approve 15%
Lean Approve 5%
Lean Reject 2%
Probably Reject 8%
Definitely Reject 35%
Undecided 8%

Hmm. Perhaps there were two polls of the exact same survey size conducted at exactly the same time on the exact same subject?  And no doubt the pollsters asked these questions in multiple ways, pushing different strengths and weaknesses, so perhaps Jenkins’ data is just as valid as mine?  And yes, it is very difficult to make an apple to apple comparison when it comes to polling data.

But no, the impression that some Democratic lawmakers have been spinning to reporters, that an income tax fares worse in the polls than a sales tax hike, simply isn’t true.  In fact, the data I’ve seen from last week’s poll shows exactly the opposite, with an income tax out-polling a sales tax 47% to 40%.  Meanwhile, what support there was for a sales tax increase was incredibly soft, with only 16% responding “Definitely Approve,” compared to 27% for an income tax.

And that is consistent with all the other polling data of seen.  A recent Elway Poll showed an income tax slightly out-polling a sales tax, 53% to 51%, while a March 2009 poll, again a survey of 800 respondents, surprised income tax proponents and detractors alike with the proposal’s initial level of support:

“This measure would establish a two percent state income tax only on income above $300,000 a year for individuals or above $600,000 a year for married couples filing jointly. If the election were held today, would you vote to APPROVE this referendum, or would you vote to REJECT it?”

(TOTAL APPROVE) = 56%
DEFINITELY APPROVE 37%
PROBABLY APPROVE 16
[LEAN APPROVE] 3
[LEAN REJECT] 3
PROBABLY REJECT 7
DEFINITELY REJECT 30
[UNDECIDED] 5

Considering the income tax is purported to be the third rail of Washington politics, those results aren’t bad, and arguably represent a more neutral survey of the public’s initial impression than one conducted while voters were in the midst of filing their federal returns.

I’m not a big fan of poll-driven lawmaking, but since one side in this debate is attempting to discredit the high-earners income tax by pushing cherry-picked data to lawmakers and reporters, I feel the need to set the record straight.  There has not been a single poll this session that has shown top line support for a sales tax hike to be significantly higher than that for a high-earners income tax, while all the polls show what support there is for a sales tax increase to be unnervingly soft.  That’s why the health care coalition has been backing away from the sales tax proposal… their well justified fear of the squishy middle.

Yes, neither proposal has polled above 60 percent, the magic number the initiative and referendum industry considers the bare minimum level of initial support for a ballot measure to warrant a substantial financial investment.  But as the surprising level of support for a high-earners income tax has already shown, conventional wisdom can sometimes be wrong.

Back in June of 2005, polls showed support for Initiative 912’s repeal of the 9.5 cent gas tax increase to be running as high as 70 percent, yet once voters learned the costs and consequences of the measure, it failed in November by a comfortable ten point margin.  Likewise, in 2006, opponents were initially concerned about support for Initiative 920’s proposed repeal of the estate tax, but after voters learned revenue was targeted to education, the measure was trounced by a resounding 24 point margin.

Washington voters have recently proven their willingness to tax themselves for the services and investments they want and need.  And they’ve proven even more willing to tax the wealthy.

And while that final sentiment may be derided by some as a call to “class warfare,” it is hard to make that argument with a straight face in the state with the most cruelly regressive tax structure in the nation.