– Yay for private charity, boo for thinking it can replace public safety net programs.
– Can we acknowledge that we don’t know what the fuck we’re doing with the death penalty at this point?
– Conservatives trying to evaluate the goals of the ACA are like elephants trying to play a toy piano.
– I’m not really excited about this year’s Capitol Hill Block Party because I’m fully 1000 years old, but if you go, here’s hoping you have a good time.
The Seattle Times editorial board has just declared the entire Seattle City Council, Mayor Ed Murray, his five immediate predecessors, and the more than 70 civic organizations that have endorsed Proposition 1, to be a bunch of dirty stinking liars:
PROPONENTS of Proposition 1 are misleading voters when they claim approval of a Seattle Park District on the Aug. 5 ballot is the only way to save city parks. The measure represents a significant change in governance and a tax increase.
Omigod… pot, meet kettle! As I’ve written before, there’s absolutely no governance change. The mayor still proposes the parks budget, the city council still amends and approves it, and the city Parks Department still administers the funds. There is a tax increase, I’ll give the editors that. But that’s the whole fucking point: more (and more stable) money for parks!
Former Superintendent Ken Bounds recently told KUOW’s The Record, “If this fails, there is no funding.”
Once again the Seattle Times is banking on its readers being even lazier than its editorial writers. But if you actually bother to listen to the entire 14-minute interview, you’ll find that the editors’ seven-word summary of Bounds’ comments were taken entirely out of context:
“This is really about the future of the parks, and what we are going to do to renew our commitment. You’re not voting for a park district or a levy, you’re voting for a park district which has funding for the parks. If this fails, there is no funding. So this is about voting for parks or saying ‘Oh, maybe some day in the future something else will happen.’ That’s not good enough for the citizens, and that’s not good enough for the parks system.”
So reading that quote in context, tell me, who’s really misleading voters here, Ken Bounds or the Seattle Times?
Furthermore, if you want to talk about misleading, in the very same interview Prop 1 opponent Don Harper resorts to his campaign’s usual bullshit scare tactics again, warning that a Park District could spend its money on whatever it wants. “Are we doing this because we want to build a $300 million waterfront park?” Harper asks KUOW listeners. “Are we going to build a new basketball arena?” Before the Seattle Times‘ own editorial board, opponents even warned that a Park District might build an airstrip atop Cal Anderson Park! Yet I don’t see the editors castigating Harper for attempting to mislead voters.
This all-or-nothing approach is troublesome because an alternate funding measure could indeed make the ballot as early as next February.
You know, so the paper would have an opportunity to torpedo the levy in a low-turnout special election, by aggressively endorsing against it the way it opposed the previous two parks levies.
If voters approve Proposition 1, new taxes would not even be collected until 2016. According to the city’s proposed six-year spending plan, the Parks and Recreation Department would get through the next year by borrowing about $10 million.
Um, what is it that the editors don’t get about the word “borrowing.” That $10 million would ultimately be paid back to the city’s general fund. But if Prop 1 fails, there’s no Park District to borrow that money, and there’s no new revenue available to pay it back. So it’s not like that $10 million is available for parks win or lose without cutting $10 million from some other crucial city service.
After that, the Seattle Park District — headed by City Council members — would have the authority to tax up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value on property owners without voter input, a massive increase from the expiring levy of about 19 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Council members say they will only collect 33 cents per $1,000 value initially.
Council members don’t just “say”—they passed a goddamn ordinance! Thirty-three cents per $1,000 value per year, through the first six years, a significant but not “massive” increase. That’s what the council passed, and that’s what the mayor signed into law. Or are the editors accusing Mayor Murray and the city council of being a bunch of dirty stinking liars?
Investment is important.
We just don’t want to pay for it.
Leaky community center roofs and dirty pools must get fixed, but not enough of Proposition 1 funds — only about 58 percent — would be spent on repairing a maintenance backlog that has ballooned to nearly $270 million. Instead of taking care of current assets, about a quarter of the new park district’s first-year revenue would be spent on expansion and development.
Really, Seattle Times? Back in 2000, when you opposed that year’s parks levy, you complained that elected officials “should pare it down, take out maintenance dollars, use tax revenues in flush times for some land acquisition.” Could you actually be more transparently hypocritical? But, you know, thanks for illustrating one of the big problems with relying on parks levies to fund our parks: they tend to be geared toward appealing to voters rather than the unsexy day to day business of routine maintenance. That’s how we accumulated this $270 million maintenance backlog in the first place.
(Also, not that the editors care about facts, but their figures aren’t exactly true. Much of that so-called “expansion and development” money is spent developing 14 land-banked sites acquired through previous parks levies, as well as restoring previously cut services at parks and community centers.)
Before attempting to replace a parks levy that voters approve every few years with a vastly different funding mechanism that gives the City Council control over a new fund worth tens of millions, the parks system should first undergo an independent, comprehensive audit. Such a review has never been done before, but it would help prioritize projects and tell voters exactly how their money is being spent.
As I’ve previously explained, that’s just not true—the parks department is subject to routine financial and accountability audits, not to mention the supervision of voters, who easily approved parks levies in 2000 and 2008 (again, over the Seattle Times’ strenuous objections). Further, the accompanying ordinance includes new money for more extensive performance audits—money that won’t exist if Prop 1 doesn’t pass. Plus, the ordinance calls for a citizens advisory committee to help shape spending priorities for the next six-year budget. So there’s arguably more accountability with the park district than there is without.
Voters should remember that once a district is formed and the council takes the reins, it can only be dissolved by its members — a highly unlikely scenario.
Because as its elected members just proved with their remarkably swift action on a historic $15 minimum wage, they are totally unresponsive to popular pressure from voters, or something.
Seattle voters are accustomed to having a robust voice on how their dollars are spent. They should not be bamboozled into thinking Proposition 1 is the sole solution for fixing parks.
Again, the editors are accusing six mayors, nine city council members, and more than 70 civic organizations of being bamboozlers. Think of it as the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” school of editorial writing.
But more to the point, yes Prop 1 is the only reasonable, stable, longterm solution to fixing our parks, because it is our only opportunity to provide an adequate and stable longterm funding source within the context of our I-747-constrained budgets.
One of the myths of the anti-Park District campaign is that we are somehow taking away from voters their historic role in directly managing parks: “Levies have been working well for us for decades,” Harper told KUOW listeners. But that’s not true. Throughout most of Seattle’s history we’ve primarily paid for parks out of our general fund. Indeed, we’ve only recently grown reliant on parks levies thanks to I-747’s absurd 1 percent cap on regular levy growth, which has sapped hundreds of millions of dollars from city coffers over the past decade—as much as $186 million in 2015 alone!
And so the city has finally turned to the Metropolitan Park District’s untapped taxing authority—an authority granted to Seattle a century ago, and one currently used by 16 other Washington municipalities without the atrocities of which opponents fabulously warn—simply to restore some of the regular levy taxing authority eroded away by I-747. In practice, it is little more than an accounting maneuver that allows the council to pass through this unused taxing authority for the benefit of city parks. Nothing more.
Yes, if Prop 1 fails, the city could eventually go back to voters with another parks levy. And like previous parks levies it would likely be loaded with goodies to appeal to the affluent neighborhoods filled with the affluent voters who reliably vote, rather than the unsexy deferred maintenance spending that always seems to be deferred. And like previous parks levies, it would consume precious levy capacity needed for other crucial services like universal preschool, roads, and transit. But what a parks levy can never provide is the adequate and stable funding source necessary to give Seattle the sort of parks, recreation, and community center system it wants and deserves.
Don’t let the Seattle Times mislead you. Vote “Yes” on Prop 1.
With 15,004 of their 18,928 signatures processed, but only 11,412 signatures validated, there are now fewer signatures remaining on Forward Seattle’s petitions than would be needed to reach the 16,510 signature threshold required to qualify their anti-$15 minimum wage referendum for the ballot. So, yeah, as I wrote yesterday, stick a fork in it.
Again, the petitions are holding steady at about a 76 percent validation. Even under the best possible circumstances, Forward Seattle would need a validation rate better than 118 percent on the remaining signatures in order to qualify for the ballot. Which is, of course, mathematically impossible.
It should be noted that a 76 percent validation rate is not unusual per se, but is certainly at the low range of normal. But maybe if you are willing to tolerate such sloppy and/or dishonest tactics on the part of your paid signature gatherers, you should expect sloppy and/or dishonest work in return. I sure hope for their sake that Forward Seattle’s contract with the notorious Citizen Solutions includes a refund for invalid signatures, considering they were reportedly paying as much as $4 a pop.
Speaking of which, as late as last week, Flying Apron Bakery co-owner Angela Cough loaned Forward Seattle $15,000, presumably to cover the expense of the last batch of signatures. Talk about throwing good money after bad.
Of course, as incompetent as all the smart, successful business owners behind Forward Seattle were at running their referendum, a lot of the credit for their failure must go to labor-backed Working Washington, which ran an effective “decline to sign” campaign that certainly made signature gathering more difficult, as well as a novel signature withdrawal campaign that added some last minute insurance. Kudos.
For the first time since 2006, HA namesake and shameless initiative profiteer Tim Eyman won’t have an initiative on the Washington State ballot.
“We worked really hard, but our signature drive for the 2/3-For-Taxes Constitutional Amendment fell short this year,” Eyman emailed supporters this morning. “We’re just gonna have to work even harder next time,” added Eyman. Also, next time, he might want to actually spend some money on signature gathering, instead of blowing the bulk of the $191,000 he raised through May on personal compensation and fundraising letters. (I’m not implying that the I-1325 campaign was a total scam. But, no, wait. I guess I am.)
Yawn.
Truth is, I don’t write much about Timmy these days because he’s ceased to be relevant. Without the late Michael Dunmire or the crazy Kemper Freeman or the money-grubbing oil industry bankrolling his campaigns, Eyman has long been a paper tiger. He has no organization, no grassroots base of support, and no fundraising list sufficient to raise the money necessary to buy enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. And so this year he didn’t.
It was other people’s money that made Eyman relevant. Without it, he’s nothing. And even with it, he’s not all that.
Over the past 15 years, Eyman has filed dozens of initiatives, qualifying 14 for the ballot. Eight Eyman initiatives have been approved by voters, but of these, all but two were ultimately ruled unconstitutional. Yes, the provisions at the heart of the unconstitutional I-695 and I-747 were reinstated by the legislature, but that’s a testament more to the political cowardice of state lawmakers than to the influence of Eyman.
Indeed, Eyman has been particularly irrelevant in recent years, since being abandoned by his sugar daddies. This is actually the second petition season in a row in which Eyman has failed to qualify an initiative. Last November’s losing I-517 was an initiative to the legislature that was submitted back in 2012. So it’s been a long time since Eyman has run a successful signature drive.
Good riddance.
Rep. Dan Kristiansen is concerned enough about how much our environmental laws are doing to small businesses. How concerned? Well, concerned enough to pull all context from a stat before putting it into a press release!
Our state has some of the strongest environmental laws on the books. As a result, Washington only produces 3/10ths of 1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally and ranks second lowest in per capita emissions among seven Western states.
Wait what?
Well, in fairness the second half of that had something approaching context. Still, I’m not sure why we’re only including Western states. If it’s per capita, just do all states. It doesn’t say what those states are. I’d guess it’s the states that touch the Pacific and Idaho and Nevada, but I really don’t know. It also doesn’t cite the source.
But assuming that there are sources, I’m still confused about the first half: 3/10ths of 1 percent. I have some questions. First, is that really the best way to write that? 3 of every 1000 tons of carbon come from Washington might be better. Or 0.3% of world carbon. But beyond semantics, where does that actually place us in the world?
Let’s see. There are 6,971,406 Washingtonians as of 2013 according to the Census. There are about 7,176,032,000 people on Earth right now. So the math is fairly easy,* and we’re a bit under 0.1% of the planet’s population. So if we are producing 0.3% of the world’s carbon pollution, just to get to a place where the average Washingtonian was producing the worldwide average of carbon pollution, we’d have to cut our output by 2/3.
I realize that the comparisons to the rest of the world can be problematic. Our economy is so different from subsistence farming. But, Rep. Kristiansen brought it up to imply that we’ve done enough.
At some point I was going to make fun of the whole press release, but if I got this worked up over a paragraph, I should probably stop now.
As I suggested this morning, Port of Seattle commissioner Courtney Gregoire proposed at today’s meeting a “total compensation” minimum wage for Sea-Tac Airport employees. Minimum total compensation would start at 13.72 an hour in 2015, with a minimum cash wage of $11.22, and rise to $15.50 an hour in 2017, with a minimum cash wage of $13. In addition, airport workers would be guaranteed a minimum of 1 hour of paid leave for every 40 hours worked.
How does that compare to Seattle’s minimum wage? Well, it depends on who you work for:
The commissioners’ proposal gets airport workers to higher wage and minimum compensation levels faster than Seattle workers at businesses with 500 or fewer employees. But in the long run it pays airport workers less than they would earn at a minimum wage job in Seattle. It’s also not clear whether this proposal applies to the concession workers in the restaurant and retail areas of the airport, or only those working in secure areas. (Update: only those with access to restricted areas are covered.)
Interestingly, much of the stated justification for raising wage standards at Sea-Tac Airport was couched in security concerns. Sea-Tac managing director Mark Reis stated that less experienced workers have twice the number of security violations as more experienced workers, making the airport’s current high job turnover rate—particularly among entry level workers—a security concern in itself. About 6,000 airport workers have direct access to secure areas.
San Francisco International Airport had similar job turnover issues before it instituted its highest in the nation airport minimum wage. It has since reduced its turnover rate from 110 percent a year to just 25 percent a year, says Reis.
After the presentations, the five port commissioners all congratulated each other on a job well done, so it looks like official approval of the proposal will be just a formality. “People who are working behind security lines in permanent positions deserve to earn a family wage job,” emphasized business-friendly commissioner Bill Bryant.
But whether or not it’s too little, too late, remains to be seen. On Thursday the Washington State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the appeal of a lower court’s ruling that SeaTac’s $15 minimum wage law does not apply to airport workers. If the court overturns the lower court ruling, not only will the workers immediately receive $15 an hour cash straight up, airport employers may be liable for millions of dollars in back pay.
UPDATE: Heather Weiner from Yes for SeaTac responds:
SeaTac voters have already spoken on this issue. The State Attorney General agrees that the City, not the Port, has jurisdiction on setting wage standards for people working inside their city limits. We’re looking forward to the hearing on Thursday.
So there.
UPDATE, UPDATE: For your reading pleasure, a copy of the commission’s draft resolution (pdf). Note that it’s in the form of an addendum to the appellate case being heard on Thursday, which supports the conclusion that this resolution may be more a legal maneuver than anything else.
Also of note is that the resolution only covers employees working in secure “Air Operations Areas” (so sorry, terminal concessions workers, not you), and that total compensation includes wages, tips, health insurance premiums, retirement contributions, and taxable educational expenses.
The International Franchise Association’s hilarious lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Seattle’s $15 minimum wage ordinance prompted instant ridicule from actual lawyers. “Crazy talk,” laughed labor and employment attorney Dmitri Iglitzin. “Frivolous,” scoffed University of Washington School of Law lecturer David Ziff. “Bonkers,” wrote Ian Millhiser, the Senior Constitutional Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
But while most of the suit’s claims were based on absurdly broad constitutional reaches (like alleging that impinging on a business’s profits would violate its First Amendment right to commercial speech), there was one claim that gave some attorneys pause—that the slower phase-in schedules for businesses providing health benefits were preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). It’s not that the attorneys thought the claim had any merit, just that ERISA is an incredibly complex area of the law in which none of them had particular expertise.
Well in fact, there is plenty of relevant case law on this issue, and not surprisingly it turns out that the IFA’s ERISA claim is just as frivolous as the rest of its ridiculous suit. From Ironworkers Dist. Council of the Pacific Northwest v. Woodland Park Zoo Planning & Development:
We agree with the attorney general opinion that the prevailing wage statute does not require employers to establish benefit programs or make benefit contributions. The respondents concede, both in their briefing and at oral argument, that an employer can satisfy the statute by making cash payments in lieu of benefits. Because J.A. Jones ‘s preemption holding was based on the faulty premise that the statute requires employers to make ERISA contributions and to make them at a certain level, we do not adopt it. Rather, we follow other jurisdictions that hold that ERISA does not preempt prevailing wage statutes similar to Washington’s, which consider the amount of usual benefits in computing the total prevailing wage, but do not require that employers actually make such contributions. See Associated Builders & Contractors, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter v. Perry, 115 F.3d 386 (6th Cir.1997); Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. NYS Dep’t of Labor, 107 F.3d 1000 (2d Cir.1997); WSB Electric v. Curry, 88 F.3d 788 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1109, 117 S.Ct. 945, 136 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997); Minnesota Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors v. Minnesota Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 47 F.3d 975 (8th Cir.1995); Keystone Chapter, Assoc. Builders & Contractors v. Foley, 37 F.3d 945 (3d Cir.1994).
Each of these cases hold that prevailing wage statutes that consider the amount of usual benefits but do not require the establishment of benefit programs or benefit payments are not preempted by ERISA because they regulate wages, not benefits. Wages are a traditional subject of state concern and are not within ERISA’s coverage. Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107, 118, 109 S.Ct. 1668, 1674–75, 104 L.Ed.2d 98 (1989). Like the prevailing wage statutes in the above cases, Washington’s statute does not prescribe the type of benefit plans or amount of contributions. Nor does it impose any sort of administrative burden on ERISA plans. Most importantly, the employer can comply with the prevailing wage statute without any ERISA plan whatsoever. Accordingly, applying the Travelers analysis, we conclude that the prevailing wage statute does not “relate to” any employee benefit plans because Congress did not intend that ERISA control state wage regulation and the prevailing wage statute does not have an impermissible effect on ERISA plans.
That’s a lot of federal case law the Washington State Court of Appeals cites, and it all concludes the same thing: “Congress did not intend that ERISA control state wage regulation.” And while the above case deals with prevailing wage law rather than minimum wage law, the issues raised in the IFA suit are entirely analogous. IFA claims that the ordinance is preempted by ERISA because it “relates to” employee benefit plans, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that such wage statutes do not.
Minimum wage critics love to disparage “burger flippers” as unworthy of earning a livable wage, yet they have no qualms about paying attorneys $1,000 an hour to file a ridiculous lawsuit like this. Amazing.
Over at my alma mater Slog, there’s a guest post up by Dave Hoover, a Colorado police sergeant and uncle of Aurora theater shooting victim A.J. Boik, urging support for Washington’s Initiative 594:
In Colorado, we responded to the unacceptable reality of gun violence by requiring background checks on private sales. It’s the best thing we could have done to honor the lives of our loved ones. Washington has an incredible opportunity this year to prevent future acts of gun violence by passing Initiative 594’s common sense background checks.
Since 2013, Colorado’s background checks on private sales have worked well for everyone in our community. Ninety-eight percent of the over 11,000 private sale background checks performed have been approved while 227 prohibited purchasers were stopped from purchasing firearms. I have personally used the system twice: once to purchase firearms and once to sell them. It’s a simple and convenient system that keeps firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them—felons, abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill.
It’s a moving and thoughtful piece. Read the whole thing.
(Presumably up next on Slog, following the equal time doctrine they adopted on the minimum wage debate in the immediate wake of my departure, will be an anti-594 guest post from a potentially disenfranchised mass shooter.)
“We won!” the headline screams in an email from 15Now.org celebrating the passage out of committee of Seattle’s imminent $15 minimum wage ordinance. If this isn’t an unambiguous declaration of victory, I don’t know what is:
Seattle has now become the first major U.S. city to pass a $15 an hour minimum wage. This historic achievement was the result of a powerful grassroots movement built from below. The message is clear: When we organize we can win!
15 Now spearheaded the campaign in Seattle, and now we are building 15 Now nationwide. We spent $150,000 to win in Seattle. To take this fight across the country we need to raise another $150,000. Please donate $15, or more, to help us end poverty wages.
So, does that mean they are dropping their charter amendment to pass an even more worker-friendly $15 minimum wage in Seattle? Not so fast.
“No decision has been made about the Charter Amendment yet,” 15 Now consultant Jeff Upthegrove said on Facebook in response to my earlier prediction that the group would pivot and move on. And despite the celebratory tone in the email above, along with the apparent shift toward a national focus, 15 Now volunteers are still gathering signatures.
I know the cool kids area all cynical about Kshama Sawant’s motives and actions, but she really has tried to help build a democratic organization, and for all her influence, it’s this democratic organization with all its various stakeholders that ultimately has to make the decision to pull the emergency brake on the ballot measure. That can’t happen overnight. Possibly not by Monday. Maybe not until they’re certain of whether there’s an opposing initiative headed to the ballot.
But while this compromise ordinance with its long phase-in and its temporary tip credit certainly doesn’t meet the strict definition of $15 now, don’t think for a minute that most of these activists don’t recognize what a huge political victory this is, and how much better off millions of hard-working Americans would be if the rest of the nation followed our example.
The Seattle Times has a feature on 82-year-old Al Ramey, who’s been driving Metro buses for 61 years, making him the longest tenured transit driver in the nation. Which is great, and all. But this particular section jumped out at me:
At age 82, he continues to drive one daily round-trip on the popular Route 150, connecting Kent, Southcenter, Sodo and downtown Seattle.
The longtime Burien resident officially retired in 2000, and currently receives a $2,795 monthly pension, records say. Ramey says his extra income from part-time driving pays for vacation cruises with his wife.
“And I’m not a sit-at-home guy,” he says.
So, if he’s been driving for 61 years, and he officially retired in 2000, that means he’s getting only $2,795 a month in pension benefits after 47 years of full-time service? That seems curiously out of line with the allegedly sky-high pay and extravagant benefits on which the paper’s editorial board disingenuously pins all of Metro’s financial problems.
Surely, $2,795 a month isn’t too much to ask in return for a half-century of driving a bus. Doesn’t sound extravagant to me.
(And as to the inevitable comments in the thread about double-dipping or something, Metro couldn’t operate its peak service without part-time drivers. If it’s not Ramey behind the wheel, it’ll be somebody else.)
– Everyone seems to like Mayor Murray’s choice for police chief.
– Maybe guns in bars might not be such a good idea
– Hey bicyclists, be careful.
– Here are some names of parties that people used this year (Spokesman-Review link).
– Congrats Oregon and Pennsylvania on human dignity.
– I haven’t been watching Cosmos (I’ll probably catch it when it comes out on DVD because I am 1000 years old) but it’s always fun to watch creationists lose their shit.
In the comment threads at HA and elsewhere, some critics have shrugged off the looming Metro bus service cuts in suburban and exurban King County by asserting that most folks out there already have cars. Eliminate the less efficient feeder routes, they argue, and just focus on providing more park and ride spots. Which I suppose would be a welcome solution for Mercer Islanders accustomed to fighting for spots at its overcrowded park and ride.
But for the suburban poor, not so much.
The problem is, not everybody owns a car and not everybody who does own a car can really afford one. According to AAA’s annual Your Driving Costs report (pdf), released just this week, the average cost of car ownership is $8,876 a year. By comparison, a full-time worker earning the Washington State minimum wage of $9.32 only takes home $19,385 in pre-tax income.
Of course, you can drive for less. But not as much less as you might imagine. AAA estimates average depreciation and finance charges at $3,510 and $847 respectively. So if you inherited a 15-year-old car from your grandmother, you can subtract that. But older cars generally have lower average fuel economy and higher annual maintenance costs (AAA estimates about 5 cents a mile for normal routine maintenance and wear and tear just over the first five years of the car, plus another penny a mile for tires), so you gotta figure those costs would be substantially higher on your typical beater. As for insurance, sure you can save bucks by declining collision and comprehensive on grannie’s clunker, but the poor generally have lower credit ratings and thus higher insurance rates, and the young (or their parents), well, they’re just generally screwed when it comes to auto insurance.
So when every penny is counted, I’d be surprised if there are many folks who can drive a car for much less than $4,000 a year. By comparison, a two-zone Metro bus pass costs $108 a month.
One of the side effects of Seattle’s booming economy and relatively strong real estate market is that we have been relentlessly driving our middle class families, let alone the working poor, out of the city and into cheaper suburban housing. It’s a tradeoff: longer commutes in exchange for lower rent. But for many households who rented an apartment or purchased a house based on proximity to a bus route that is no longer there, adding a car to their monthly budget just doesn’t pencil out.
Short term, there’s not much Seattle voters can do for suburban bus commuters. But we shouldn’t just shrug off their plight.
Oh no! “Insurers propose up to 26% increase in health-plan rates,” the headline on the front page of the Seattle Times website warns. Goddamn Obamacare ruining everything! Except, read the actual article and…
The proposed rate changes range from a decrease of 6.8 percent — from Molina Healthcare of Washington — to an increase of 26 percent from Time Insurance, a national company with relatively few Washington policyholders.
Most rate-change requests, particularly from larger insurers, were in the middle ground, with most asking for increases from about 2 to about 11 percent.
To anyone who has had individual insurance, premium increases are not surprising: Records show that, on average, insurers have proposed rate increases for individual plans from about 9 percent to more than 18 percent every year from 2007 to 2013.
So that one 26 percent rate hike proposal was an outlier—almost double the next highest request—that affects few Washingtonians, while the average rate hike request is actually lower than that during the previous six years! Yay for Obamacare! But you wouldn’t know that from the incredibly biased and misleading heading.
I mean, they could’ve written their headline to read “Insurers propose up to 6.8% cut in health-plan rates,” and been just as accurate. But they didn’t.
This is actually a really important election year story. Republicans have been looking to the rate hike requests as an election year opportunity to spin Obamacare into a disaster for consumers. But if the rate hike requests are actually coming in lower than in previous years, then that is at least preliminary evidence that the exchanges are pulling in enough healthy Americans to balance the costs.
So thanks, Seattle Times editors, for attempting to spin relatively good news on one of the first post-Obamacare rate hike requests into an anti-Obamacare national headline.
UPDATE: So how do other headline writers interpret the news? “A Washington State Health Insurer Plans to Cut Rates in 2015,” declares the Wall Street Journal, taking the opposite (and arguably sexier) spin. Pretty embarrassing for the Seattle Times.
UPDATE, UPDATE: As Richard points out in the comment thread, the editors updated the article at 10:35 am, changing the headline to the far more neutral: “Most state health insurers seek rate boost: Proposals compared.” Score another victory for Seattle Times Voluntary Ombudsman David Goldstein!
It’s not often that I find myself passionately on the same side of a controversial issue with the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, and the Seattle Times editorial board. Then again, there really shouldn’t be anything controversial about net neutrality.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has suffered a barrage of criticism since he proposed allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to cut deals with content providers to pay more for faster service.
Wheeler’s pay-for-prioritization proposal means the end of net neutrality, the idea that all Internet content is treated equally — free of toll booths or fast lanes.
Imagine if, let’s say, HA suddenly started loading a quarter as fast as the Seattle Times—or perhaps not at all—because I couldn’t afford to pay Comcast and Qwest the “prioritization fees” necessary to get my content to their customers via their fast lanes? No wait. I don’t have to imagine. I’ve already been through something like that in a prior venture.
When I first started up my software company in the early 1990s, large software retailers like Egghead, Computer City, and CompUSA all bought direct. We got crappy terms, and it was often a hassle (Computer City had us ship directly to individual stores, sometimes ordering as few as two copies per store), but at least we had access to the market.
But it was right around that time that an explosion of consumer titles and a wave of consolidation started changing everything for small independent publishers. One by one the major retailers stopped buying direct, instead insisting on buying through one of two or three distributors. But we were too small to get into distribution. The two largest distributors demanded annual six-figure “market development funds”—essentially a retail channel entrance fee. A second tier distributor took us on before quickly going bankrupt, stiffing us on tens of thousands of dollars in accounts receivable.
But wait. It gets worse.
Once we lost access to brick and mortar retail, the mail order catalogs, which had previously accounted for more than 70 percent of our sales, started jacking up the “co-op advertising fees” to independents like us who had no other options. An eighth of a page ad that cost us a few hundred bucks a month in 1993 could run as much as $8,000 a month by 1996. It wasn’t that there wasn’t a market for our rhyming dictionary software, it’s that we could no longer afford to access to it. So products like ours disappeared from the market until the App Store model democratized the software industry more than a decade later.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s close enough. When I first started blogging a decade ago, I had every disadvantage but one: equal and unfettered access to readers. And so I was free to compete in the marketplace of ideas, winning what readership I could based on the quality of my content rather than the whims (or extortion) of some gatekeeper. This relatively low barrier to entry is one of the things that has made the Internet so transformative. But take away net neutrality and you will ultimately create a sort of broadband apartheid—a separate and unequal Internet forever in the grasp of those who levy the tolls, and those few who can afford to pay them.
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that the practice of offering predominantly Christian prayers before the start of government meetings does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The press is describing the split on the bench as one between “conservatives” and “liberals.” But notably, it is also largely a split between Christians and Jews, with five of the six Christian justices joining the majority, and all three Jewish justices signing on to the dissent.
No doubt judicial philosophy had something to do with the split, but I’m not sure that the Christian members of the court fully appreciate the depth and scope of our nation’s inherent religious bigotry toward non-Christians. Or if they do, they just don’t give a shit.
“No one can fairly read the prayers from Greece’s town meetings as anything other than explicitly Christian — constantly and exclusively so,” Kagan said. “The prayers betray no understanding that the American community is today, as it long has been, a rich mosaic of religious faiths.”
The legal tussle began in 2007, following eight years of nothing but Christian prayers in the town of nearly 100,000 people outside Rochester. Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, a Jew and an atheist, took the board to federal court and won by contending that its prayers – often spiced with references to Jesus, Christ and the Holy Spirit — aligned the town with one religion.
Once the legal battle was joined, town officials canvassed widely for volunteer prayer-givers and added a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and a member of the Baha’i faith to the mix. Stephens, meanwhile, awoke one morning to find her mailbox on top of her car, and part of a fire hydrant turned up in her swimming pool.
And no. No kid has ever had the shit beaten out of him for refusing to participate in a Christian prayer.
Perhaps if our court’s papist majority had a firmer grasp on the history of religious intolerance in America, they’d have greater appreciation for the often uncomfortable experience of our nation’s religious minorities.
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!