[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAgu6zI9v0[/youtube]
Props to Ryan Chittum at Columbia Journalism Review for quoting from History of the World, Part I in a column about Count de Monet’s Rick Santelli’s “revolutionary” outburst today.
Count de Monet: “The People Are Revolting!”
Louis XVI: “You said it—they stink on ice!”
The first poll in Washington’s 2010 US Senate race has been released, and it looks good for incumbent Democrat Patty Murray.
The Daily Kos/Research 2000 survey polled head-to-head matchups between Sen. Murray and both Dave Reichert and Rob McKenna, both of whom Murray led by double-digit margins. Sen. Murray scored a respectable 55% favorable rating, whereas Reichert and McKenna registered 38% and 34% favorable respectively.
Not surprising really, though apart from Murray’s strength I think the survey also reveals the inherent weakness of the Republican bench here in Washington state. Indeed, that DKos/R2K would even bother to poll head-to-head with Reichert and McKenna is telling, considering that neither is likely to challenge Murray in 2010.
Reichert is a political lightweight with demonstrated shallow support even within his own district. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a Reichert Senate run would end up any differently than 2004, when an equally politically diminutive George Nethercutt got his ass whipped by the physically diminutive Murray. Reichert might be stupid enough to give it go, but I doubt his handlers are.
Meanwhile, only 63% of respondents even had an opinion of McKenna, despite him being the highest ranking Republican official statewide, and arguably the most talented politician in the WSRP. McKenna is widely considered to be biding his time in preparation for a 2012 gubernatorial run, a race for which, four years out, many political insiders rank him the frontrunner, despite his obvious handicap (ie, his Republicanism). McKenna would have to be absolutely crazy to risk his gubernatorial bid on a quixotic challenge of Murray. And McKenna is not crazy.
Of course, if DKos/R2K was going to run a poll, they had to do a head to head with somebody, and for the life of me I don’t have any better suggestions. Dino Rossi? Cathy McMorris-Rodgers? Mike!™ McGavick? I don’t expect any of them to run, and I wouldn’t expect them to win if they did. But who else does the WSRP have?
Just goes to show you how weak the Republican bench is in Washington state these days.
dec⋅i⋅mate [des–uh-meyt]
-verb (used with object), -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing.
1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
3. Obsolete. to take a tenth of or from.
I’ve heard a lot of talk around Olympia and throughout the rest of the state about how proposed budget cuts are going to “decimate” crucial state services.
Huh. On the one hand, that’s an incorrect use of the word.
“Decimate,” in the modern sense of the word—referring to destroying a nonspecific but great proportion of—really only applies to the killing of people. Of course, one could apply it to any object in the more technical and archaic form of the word, but in that sense, “decimation” only means to reduce by 10-percent, whereas in reality many state services will be cut by much more than that.
But on the other hand, “decimation” is perhaps the perfect word to describe our impending budget cuts, at least in terms of its Latin origin:
Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = “ten”) was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning “removal of a tenth.”
A cohort selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group drew lots (Sortition), and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing. The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat and forced to sleep outside of the Roman encampment.
Later today the new revenue forecast will be released, and the budget gap is only expected to widen. Unless they also consider the revenue side of the equation, legislators will soon embark in earnest on the process of decimation: determining who gets stoned to death and who merely loses their food and their tent.
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Vancouver) is one of two congressmen currently taking a trip to the Gaza Strip. TPM has the story.
Joining Baird on the visit is Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), America’s first Muslim congressman. They will, according to a joint press release, meet with key officials from the Palestinian Authority and “view first-hand the destruction from recent Israeli air and ground attacks, and to meet with international and local relief agencies.”
It sounds bad, too.
“The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering,” Baird says in the release. “Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental needs such as water, sewer, and electricity facilities have been hit and immobilized.”
The trip was not sanctioned by the Obama administration.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA[/youtube]
Because the trading floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is exactly like the rest of America.
Cute to throw in the concept of a Chicago Tea Party, when what’s actually happening is more like the attempted escape from Versailles.
I say take Santelli back to Paris, and keep an eye on him. Revolutionary analogies are fun, though! I’ll take the Winter Palace for $800, Alex.
As Jon already reported, Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen was down in Olympia yesterday asking legislators for a 40-percent cut in the newspaper industry’s B&O tax to help them through these tough economic times. (You know, on top of the sales tax exemption the industry already enjoys.) Still…
“Some of us, like The Seattle Times, are literally holding on by our fingertips today,” Blethen said.
No doubt. And as a former small business owner myself preparing to dive headlong into a new and even riskier venture in the flailing news industry, I know first hand that paying a B&O tax while losing money makes survival all the more difficult for any struggling business.
But rather than handing out business tax breaks based on one’s ability to exert political pressure, wouldn’t the more rational solution to Frank’s very real problem be to move from our antiquated B&O tax on gross receipts to a fairer and simpler corporate income tax on net profits? You know… like nearly every other state in the union?
For those of you who’ve never paid the B&O tax it is bizarrely byzantine with 17 tax classifications and 25 different credits that has some industries paying more than ten times the effective rate of others, and which, despite DOR’s best efforts, can be an absolute bitch to figure out. For example, as a small software developer and publisher, our income was taxed at three different rates under four different tax classifications: retailing, wholesaling, royalties and services. (Perhaps five different tax classifications… I could never quite figure out whether some of our “wholesaling” business was actually “manufacturing”, though it didn’t really matter as both activities are taxed at the same rate.)
Much simpler would have been a corporate income tax, as we were already figuring out our profit/loss for the IRS, and while the B&O tax was never onerous (we never grossed more than a few hundred thousand dollars in a year), paying a tax on our losses didn’t make it any easier to start up a new business.
So it is more than a little disappointing to see our newspaper publishers, struggling under the weight of heavy losses, selfishly lobbying for a narrow tax break for themselves rather than using their unique position as opinion leaders to advocate for a more rational and fairer tax system that would address the needs of other struggling businesses while promoting entrepreneurialism and new business creation.
But then, that’s the sort of knee-jerk opposition to even debating an income tax that we’ve come to expect from our state’s opinion leaders.
Sounds like there could be a campaign to keep Washington state alive!
With another dismal state revenue forecast expected today, House Democratic leaders now say they’ll likely propose sending voters a tax package this year to help deal with a staggering shortfall in the state budget.
“I’m assuming there will probably be something that goes on the ballot,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairwoman Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham. House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler agreed.
And of course the gate-keepers would want to keep on gate-keeping, assuming they can stay in business:
Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen and Scott Campbell, publisher of The Columbian in Vancouver, told the Senate Ways and Means Committee they need help during tumultuous times in the industry.
Under the proposed measure, the business and occupation tax on newspapers would be cut by 40 percent through 2015.
Yes, newspapers are important. But really? Someone is seriously considering yanking, in effect, money that could be used in my kids’ classroom to keep publishers like Blethen and Campbell in business?
So all that right-wing agit-prop about free markets and how terrible unions are was just a joke, or what? Why don’t they ask Don Brunell for the money, he’s been placing columns in The Columbian for years now. I’d say he owes them.
Odd duck Douglas Tooley isn’t at all happy with The Stranger’s Erica C. Barnett. You see, Erica is advocating for more transit-oriented development in SE Seattle:
Hey ECB there’s a word for how you environmental folks are treating the people in SE – it’s called H A R R A S S M E N T, or if you wish, environmental racism.
Why don’t you start with your own neighborhood and make that work, rather than taking over everbody elses?
Where does Erica C. Barnett live?
SE Seattle
Nice catch by Niki Sullivan over at the TVW blog during testimony on SB 6035, which would reform the retrospective ratings plan system (the infamous “retro” money that BIAW uses as a slush fund to launch endless and usually untruthful attacks against Democrats.)
Rick D. (Didn’t catch his last name): “The Retro program is desperate for serious reform… this program is completely lacking in rigorous … accounting.” He said he participated in the BIAW Retro pool for some time. He would receive refunds, but never knew why or what it was based on. When he found out the BIAW was using some of the refund money to buy political ads, he protested. He says he was kicked out of the program for questioning it.
But it sounds like a couple of senators weren’t buying it so much:
Sen. Karen Keiser asked Rick if he ever received any safety information from his retro program. Yes, he said. He attended training that was “invaluable.”
Sen. Janea Holmquist said she was having a “hard time believing” that Rick didn’t know where the money was spent. She asked if he was on the board of the program. He said yes, for one meeting.
“I just want to highlight that this is a voluntary program,” Holmquist said. You belong to the Retro pool voluntarily and give them your money voluntarily.
Unless, of course, you say something the BIAW doesn’t like, then they kick you out.
It would be a shame if BIAW had to actually go out and solicit donations to fund its vicious campaigns. It’s pretty clear a lot of their own members don’t even like what they do.
Today Sullivan rounds up the proposed legislation here. Requiring an actuarial review and requiring refunds to members, less administrative costs, sounds pretty reasonable. But wait!
That’s the basic framework. But there’s more: During the 2008 campaign, the state Democratic party raised concerns about the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW, the largest retro program) using some of its retro refund for political activity — something that is not illegal. In the public hearing yesterday, some who testified in opposition to the bill said they thought it was an attempt to curb political speech. Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a sponsor, said the bill has nothing to do with that.
To back the train up to the starting point: most regular citizens would be beyond surprised to know that BIAW funds its political activities from rebates in a worker’s compensation fund. It’s downright sleazy and outrageous, and there’s no logical reason to allow the practice to continue, despite the whimpering from BIAW and others.
It’s a freaking insurance program administered by the state, for crying out loud, and protestations about free speech are more than a little ridiculous in that context. The state is under no obligation to enable BIAW or any other group to divert insurance funds towards politics.
Sure, BIAW will cry like stuck pigs about “retribution,” but who cares? Side with the little people for once, Democrats! All those small contractors deserve to get their money back, especially with the economy in the toilet, not pay for a bunch of horseshit right-wing television ads.
The senate’s judiciary committee just voted seven to one for a bill that would provide legal immunity to those who call medics for someone overdosing on drugs. The bill is designed to encourage folks, who are afraid of getting busted, to call for help instead of abandoning an overdosing person to die. Drug overdoses killed 700 people in Washington in 2006. […] Only state senator Pam Roach (R-31) voted against the bill.
Which is ironic, considering that Roach is also the only state senator on the committee with a child who has been caught on videotape snorting oxycontin, and subsequently convicted on a felony drug offense. Go figure.
Considering the reality of what we are facing in these economic times, why would we want to write a check to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with the most expensive, most risky, least studied and slowest-to-construct option?
That’s from Rep. Geoff Simpson’s recent opinion piece in the Seattle Times. It’s about the tunnel. You know, the thing that’s got all that “critical mass“?
Here’s something I bet you didn’t know:
In other parts of Washington State, the highways are built and maintained using the state’s tax dollars. But the legislature and Governor Gregoire have proposed adding extra taxes, taxes that will be paid by the residents of varying taxing districts:
Residents of King County would pay the state gas tax each time they fill up their tank and about $200 or more for car tabs each year. Then, the taxpayers in the Port of Seattle’s district — which again is everyone in King County — will be on the hook for another $300 million from property taxes. Through the shell game of tax-increment financing and other city taxes, Seattle’s citizens alone will shoulder nearly a billion dollars. And finally, if the state Senate transportation chair has her way, we’d each have to pay a toll to drive in the new tunnel.
In other parts of the state, it doesn’t work this way:
in Eastern Washington and other parts of the state, the state actually pays for state highways. What confuses me is why local taxpayers should be taxed time after time to pay for infrastructure that is vital to the entire state’s economy. State highway projects anywhere else in the state would be paid for with state funds, not local taxes.
If the state doesn’t have the money for a tunnel, where does that leave us?
We don’t need a tunnel because there is another option that is faster, cheaper and less risky. Replacing the viaduct with the surface/transit proposal is the best available option because it is financially responsible, better for the environment and leaves our options open for the future. It removes the dangerous viaduct earlier and we could still build a tunnel or another elevated roadway. And it will carry enough traffic to get by for several years.
If it takes an op-ed from a Kent firefighter to shake up the stale conventional wisdom that surrounds the viaduct debate in Olympia, then that’s what it takes. What I want to know is, where are my Seattle legislators? I want to know why they’re ready to sign on to a project that’s 1% designed, a project that could cost as much as 12 billion dollars. Why are Seattle legislators so willing to lock us in to a terribly unfair scheme of local taxes for a state highway?
Here’s a great money-saving tip for travelers planning to fly on US Airways (you know, other than the obvious tip, which is don’t): an easy way to get around the failing airline’s self-defeating checked baggage charge ($15 for the first bag, $25 for the second, and an insulting $100 for each bag thereafter).
Just bring your luggage to the gate and make them force you to check your bags there during boarding. This works great with any item you can squeeze through the scanner at security, as US Airways is simply unequipped to charge you at the gate or on the plane for something you’ve managed to carry that far.
Screw you, US Airways!
Coming soon, a full review of my flight yesterday from Fort Lauderdale to Seattle, which was far from the worst flying experience I’ve ever endured, but certainly the most intentionally humiliating, and the final straw that has turned my former first choice in flying into my last.
It may be nothing, but worth noting in case it is something:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has postponed a public meeting for Wednesday that was intended to answer questions about the recent closure of the Bank of Clark County.
The meeting was to have been held at Skyview High School, near Vancouver.
FDIC officials plan to hold the meeting at a later date, said Anne Butler, a former bank employee who is working for the FDIC since the bank closure.
Readers may recall that some depositors were tipped off about the impending problems at the bank, and well, others were not. Best anyone can tell that’s all legal, if not fair. Little old un-connected people didn’t seem to come out so well.
This town (Vancouver, WA) stinks to high heaven and I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out all sorts of interesting stuff someday. But that’s just a hunch. Most likely it will all go away in the end with a combination of fake “I’m sorries” and a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. The little old ladies who lost their uninsured deposits, you know, they’ll die sometime.
It is a special evening for the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.
Tonight’s meeting will be held at Seattle’s Town Hall for a talk entitled “Barack Obama and the Challenge of the Bush Legacy” by Walter Williams (emeritus professor at the UW’s Center for American Politics and Public Policy) and Bryan D. Jones (professor at the University of Texas, Austin Department of Government). Start time is 7:30pm.
After the talk (around 9:00pm) the Drinking Liberally crowd will migrate to a (currently) undisclosed location for debriefing, drinks and discussion.
Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for some 320 chapters of Drinking Liberally spread across the earth. There’s bound to be one near you.
This time it’s a Texas banker (yeah, what are the odds?)
Hoping to halt what it called “a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world,” the Securities and Exchange Commission charged billionaire R. Allen Stanford and other executives at his massive financial services company, Stanford Financial Group, with operating a multibillion-dollar fraudulent investment scheme.
In a complaint filed early Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Dallas, the SEC alleged Antigua-based Stanford International Bank (SIB) fabricated investment returns in order to market and sell high-yielding certificates of deposits.
The complaint charged SIB with selling approximately $8 billion of CDs to investors by promising improbable and unsubstantiated interest rates.
You kind of wonder what it’s going to take to get Republicans espousing “free-market” solutions to admit that the “market” has not functioned as such. It’s apparently been a non-stop, gigantic crime wave by people using offshore accounts and white collar trickery instead of guns and knives.
The moral decay in our society is widespread and palpable, and it’s not confined to one party. But there is one party that is more intensely and palpably rotten than the other, and most regular Americans know that.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!