Search Results for: 10,000

The Stranger’s Eli Sanders has been on top of the Danielson-Gonzalez Supreme Court race for a long time now. In fact, I think he deserves some of the credit for raising awareness that led to an election result in which a highly qualified candidate with the Hispanic surname defeated the highly unqualified candidate with the lilly-White surname.

But even in victory, Eli has an important point to make about failure:

The results are now clear: rural voters, for the most part, pick the white guy over the Latino guy.

If Gonzalez hadn’t spent over $260,000 to combat this dynamic—and if urban Washingtonians hadn’t sounded the alarm—then we’d now have a Justice Bruce Danielson.

This is a disgracefully ignorant and dangerous way to pick our supreme court justices.

There is another point to make here as well.

The deal is this. Every single county East of the Cascades went for the white guy. Most of them did so by 60% or more, including Adams and Douglas counties that went for Danielson by over 70%.

The counties with the highest proportion of Hispanic population (from 2010 census data) are Franklin (63.8%), Adams (57.9%), Yakima (45.6%), Grant (39.5%), Chelan (27.5%), Douglas (26.7%), Walla Walla (21.4%), Okanogan (19.2%), and Benton (18.0%).

All of these counties but Benton voted for Danielson in excess of 60%. That’s right…Franklin county, with a 63.8% Hispanic population went for Danielson by 64.3%. And Adams county, with a 57.9% Hispanic population went for Danielson by 70.6%.

Now, there may be several reasons why counties with a high proportion of Hispanic individuals have voters that overwhelmingly vote Republican and vote against a highly qualified individual with a Hispanic surname running for Supreme Court.

The Hispanic population may be younger, so that many are not old enough to vote. A certain proportion may be non-citizens. A lower rate of English literacy among Hispanic voters may suppress voter turn-out. Hey, there may even be some fraction of Hispanic voters who really believe it’s in their best interest to vote Republican (yeah…right!).

What we can say is that the interests of the considerable Hispanic population in Washington state for whatever reasons are not being served by our electoral system.

I find that disgraceful!

I don’t know what the story is behind this failure. Frankly, this looks like a failure on the part of Democrats to conduct effective registration drives, voter education efforts, and put GOTV operations into the field in these counties.

Whatever the reason, it needs to change!

Just before the June, 2010 Washington State Republican Party convention, WSRP chair Luke Esser sent a pledge letter out to the G.O.P. senatorial candidates who were challenging Sen. Patty Murray (my emphasis):

We the undersigned Republican candidates for U.S. Senate herby urge the Washington State Republican Party to not make a pre-primary endorsement or nomination of any candidate in this year’s race for U.S. Senate, and to offer equal access to party resources for all Republican candidates. A pre-primary endorsement or nomination would only serve to divide our party at a time when we all need to be united in the effort to defeat Patty Murray. [….]

As Esser explained to Politico:

I thought it would be a mistake for anybody to win an endorsement. I think the body and the state party believe at this point that we should have a competitive and vigorous primary. May the best candidate win.

That’s some pathetic spin. The back story is that the Teabaggers were highly energized with a strong presence at the 2010 convention. The Teabaggers were pushing for a Clint Diddier nomination over latecomer Dino Rossi. Diddier had just earned Sarah Palin’s endorsement. A nomination fight would have have gotten ugly!

There’s only one problem with not nominating anyone in 2010. Take it away, Goldy (emphasis in original):

In what could turn out to be massive political blunder with far-reaching consequences, a question has been raised as to whether Mitt Romney can legally qualify to appear on the Washington ballot under existing state law:

WAC 434-215-165 Presidential nominations by major political parties.

Nominations for president and vice-president by major political parties are conducted at each party’s national convention. Immediately following the convention, each party must submit a certificate of nomination and list of electors to the secretary of state in order to place the nominees on the presidential general election ballot.

That is the procedure by which presidential candidates from “major political parties” qualify for Washington’s general election ballot. But according to a public records request that was forwarded my way, the Washington State Republican Party may no longer be a major party:

RCW 29A.04.086 tells us that “”Major political party” means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.”

The problem for the state G.O.P. is that the Senate race was the only state-wide race in 2010. And, as far as anyone can tell, and consistent with Esser’s pledge letter and statement, there was no actual Republican nominee for statewide office in 2010.

The implication is that the WSRP is now, technically, a minor party in Washington state.

Why is this important? Well…it is embarrassing. Republicans losing major party status will be the laughing stock of Washington state…with some assistance from the Teabaggers, Sarah Palin, and Dino Rossi’s timorousness in announcing his run.

But the other, potentially more serious consequence, is that the WSRP would be required to nominate a presidential candidate according to the rules for a minor party:

(2) In order to nominate candidates for the offices of president and vice president of the United States, United States senator, United States representative, or any statewide office, a nominating convention shall obtain and submit to the filing officer the signatures of at least one thousand registered voters of the state of Washington.

and signatures must…

(7) Be submitted to the appropriate filing officer not later than one week following the adjournment of the convention at which the nominations were made.

The 2012 WSRP State Convention ended on June 2. Oopsiedoodles!

So, unless the state Republicans submitted those 1,000 signatures and complied with all the other requirements of RCW 29A.20.161, Mitt Romney is not eligible to be on the Washington state general election ballot.

Should that happen, the Washington state Republicans will be the laughing stock of the nation.

While I’m still not thrilled with the fact that CEO’s can do this sort of thing [h/t]. But as long as they can, this is a lot better than them spending it on the bad side of an initiative.

Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie announced a gift Friday of $2.5 million to the campaign to defend Washington’s same-sex marriage law.

With the gift, Washington United for Marriage has raised more than $5 million for the Referendum 74 campaign. Last month Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and co-founder Bill Gates each donated $100,000 to support the law.

Dominic Holden on Slog linked to a poll a while ago that suggested that marriage equality might be in trouble. So hopefully this will help turn things around.

My questions in bold; Sarajane Siegfriedt’s as is.

1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?

Obviously, the state is not living up to its paramount duty. The judge in the McCleary case made this crystal clear, as did another judge in a similar case in the 70s. “Paramount duty” is most often interpreted as 50% of the state budget. We are currently devoting only about 42% of the $32 billion budget to Basic Education. (Basic Education was expanded by the legislature in the 2011 session.) We are $4 billion short. The “down payment” of $1 billion for K-12 Basic Education is due in the 2013-2015 biennial budget. We have to make up another $3 billion by 2018. As the Governor said and as both candidates for Governor failed to grasp, we have to raise taxes to pay for this.

2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?

I am not the only candidate or legislator who will refuse to vote to raise the sales tax. For a decade, I have long fought for social and economic justice as part of the Poverty Action Network. Three years ago, I joined with Fuse, the WA Budget & Policy Center and many others as the Our Economic Future Coalition to propose progressive plans to increase revenue. I support a capital gains tax, which falls on the top 3% and exempts sale of a primary residence. It’s time to revisit the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. It’s been 10 years since Eyman’s initiative eliminated it, economic times have changed, huge budget cuts have been made and transit and ferries have suffered without the tax. The MVET is inherently a progressive tax. We also need a per-barrel tax on oil. The 60% tuition increases at our colleges and universities since 2009 constitute one of the worst taxes on the poor (especially community college and voc/tech) and they need to be reversed. This is a wealthy state, but our tax system doesn’t reflect that fact. Wealthy individuals and corporations need to pay their fair share.

3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?

I disagree with your premise. I believe we will be able to pass more progressive taxes for several reasons. One reason is that the challenge to Eyman’s I-1053 was ruled unconstitutional. I believe the Supreme Court will sustain this ruling before the beginning of the 2013 session. I believe the Democrats will retain a working majority in both houses, based in part on Obama’s popularity and the presence of the marijuana and equal marriage initiatives on the ballot. Second, education is widely supported by both parties and we have the McCleary ruling, which makes raising taxes imperative under any governor. Third, we have a bipartisan legislative task force that must come up with a plan to raise $1 billion for Basic Ed before the session starts—or else. Fourth, we have the House Democratic Caucus coming up with their own progressive plan to raise revenue. Fifth, we are far more likely now than in prior years to reform the system of tax exemptions, because the Grover Norquist pledge was broken by the Republicans last session when they sponsored and voted to repeal the Wall Street Bank tax exemption. There are 570 tax exemptions that lack a statement of legislative intent. This will change, and measurable outcomes for tax exemptions will be demanded.

4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?

I’m the only candidate endorsed by the 46th District Democrats, the King County Democrats, and Rep. Phyllis Kenney, whom I hope to succeed. I have a record of fighting for social and economic justice on state issues. I have been focused on Olympia since I lobbied there for alcohol and drug treatment fulltime in the 2002 session. Afterward, I joined several boards, including Solid Ground, one of the largest social service agencies in King County. We recently produced 50 units of low-income family housing at Sand Point, with 50 more on the way. I am the only candidate who has been involved with the Democratic Party. Since 2004, my involvement has been with issues, writing platforms and more recently as Legislative Action Chair of the King County Democrats—their volunteer lobbyist, if you will. The job includes working with labor and all the major progressive coalitions and with legislators to form a consolidated legislative agenda. I track bills, send out legislative alerts and organize a lobby day. More than anything else, this position has given me the breadth of experience to make informed decisions on priority legislation in Olympia. Our number one priority has been progressive revenue reform, in order to pay for everything else, including education, the safety net, housing and the environment.

I have lived in the 46th District for the past 15 years, in Lake City. I’m involved in my district, with issues of homelessness and plans for transit-oriented pedestrian-friendly mixed-income communities at Lake City and at Northgate. I’m also the only candidate with an appointive public board position. I serve on the King County Board of Equalization, hearing appeals of property tax assessments. I’m the only candidate with an MBA and with a background in business. I’ve worked for AT&T and for Boeing (for seven years). I combine private sector and non-profit management experience with public service and extensive knowledge of state issues.

5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?

How can we argue that wealthy individuals and corporations should pay their fair share, meaning they pay more than they get back, when we don’t expect the wealthiest county in the state to do the same? There are several counties that cannot perform the basic functions of county government, as required by law, without substantial state assistance. Does that mean the other counties should have fewer requirements?

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. I will fight for my district to get its fair share of transportation funds to maintain State Road 522, otherwise known as Lake City Way/Bothell Way, because it is a state highway carrying far more heavy truck traffic than before tolling began on the 520 bridge. The town of Kenmore, with 22,000 residents, is being forced to pay $68 million in road repairs on its “main street” that should be the state’s responsibility. The state is paying for the 520 bridge and most of the Hwy. 99 tunnel. When it comes to funding education and social services, two of the state’s top responsibilities, why is it inherently better or worse to fund a teacher or a foster children’s case manager in Seattle or in Yakima? In the end we must trust these state departments to allocate their funds on the basis of need, not silos or fiefdoms. (Trust, then audit?) Perhaps the founders of Kentucky and Massachusetts got it right when they named them “commonwealths,” not states. The name emphasizes an idea that has been neglected. We are all in this together.

I’m going to be generous to Mitt Romney today. But first some context.

As his primary opponents predicted earlier this year, Mitt’s Bain Capitol record is coming back to bite him in the assets. The latest (which probably isn’t really the latest in the few minutes it takes me to write this post) comes from The Boston Globe:

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Here’s the generous part: Mitt’s account may be correct! It very well may be that he left Bain for Salt Lake City, and psychologically detached from Bain, leaving all of the management in the hands of his trusted partners.

I can imagine a departing speech, perhaps held on a yacht in Boston Harbor:

I’ve got an Olympic-sized corruption scandal and fiscal problems to deal with in SLC. So, I’m taking a leave. I’ll have nothing more to do with running Bain through the end of the Olympics. I leave it to you, my trusted friends, to maximize shareholder profits. (And as the only shareholder, I demand it! [forced laugh.]) If you make the shareholder fabulously wealthy, you will be generously rewarded when I move on to my post-Olympic project…. So for now, you have the helm.

(Exit stage right.)

And maybe Mitt lived up to this ideal. There is even some evidence consistent with this account. In some sense, then he shouldn’t be held accountable for decisions made during his leave. Right?

The political problem for Mitt is that, as Kevin Drum points out, the whole thing just looks icky. Denying responsibility for big decisions while at the same time being listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” on multiple SEC filings, makes Mitt look like he is dodging responsibility.

It feels weaselly. Apparently…the buck doesn’t stop with Mitt. (It’s spirited away to a Swiss Bank Account.)

Furthermore, pulling down a salary (even a paltry $100,000) while on leave makes it seem like he was either actively doing something for the company, or skimming without justification.

Either one may be true without tying Mitt to actual decisions (or knowledge of) embarrassing investments and politically damaging layoffs. But, either way, it still looks bad, and people will have to be excused for feeling misled by Mitt.

But here is the deal. I think this Bain thing has left Mitt in a precarious position…and with a much bigger problem.

The problem is that any evidence of decision making at Bain during his leave will make a liar out of Mitt. The evidence so far is good for Mitt. And thousands and thousands of pages of additional documentation may well be released. But proof doesn’t come from negative evidence, so uncertainty will linger.

The flip side is that it will take but one memo, one recording of an invited speech, one email, a telephone recording, or maybe even a handful of disgruntled ex-employees with some personal notes (remember the Veterans who “served with” John Kerry?) to provide a solitary example of Mitt making a major decision for Bain during his leave…and Mitt’s credibility will be decimated.

And worst of all for Mitt, there is a huge incentive to be the first news organization to find it.

The race is on!

In this post (the third in my series on LD redistricting), the topic is still another Seattle-area Legislative District with an open seat. I have a lot of connections with the 36th, not least of which is that my sister and her family live there. Also, as we’ll soon see, my own precinct used to be — but is no longer — right on the border between the 43rd and the 36th.

NOTE: a click on the “Click to continue” link below will open the key to definitions of the meanings of the various colors and other symbols on the maps.

Location — northwest Seattle, from Belltown to Crown Hill
   Senate: Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), 2014
   House 1: Reuven Carlyle (D)
   House 2: Mary Lou Dickerson (D), retiring

The 36th District is quite compact, and its borders didn’t change very much in the recent redistricting. It still encompasses most of Belltown and all of Queen Anne, Interbay, Magnolia, and Ballard. Like the 43rd to its east, but now unlike the 46th to its northeast, it lies entirely within the city of Seattle. Not only that — the 36th LD is also entirely within Jim McDermott’s Congressional District (WA-07) and entirely within Larry Phillips’s King County Council District (KC-4). The map below displays the 36th District as it was defined on the 2001 map, prior to the recent redistricting. The map’s scale is 60,000:1.

It is immediately obvious that the new version of the 36th LD is quite similar to the 2001 map. Given the homogeneity of Seattle, and understanding that the LD’s and the city’s population growth was much the same as the state as a whole, there was little reason to make many changes there. We can’t look into the collective mind of the Redistricting Commission, but it appears that they generally chose to concentrate whatever changes took place in Seattle in the redrawn 46th District.

The map of 2011’s 36th District displays the boundaries of the Congressional Districts in its vicinity. Only one of those dashed blue lines is particularly interesting … the small piece of border in the lower right corner of the image. It demonstrates that the edge of WA-07 comes close to the 36th, but doesn’t quite get there. That piece of the CD’s border (WA-09 is southeast of that line) actually separates the 43rd District from the 37th; the core of Seattle is divided among the three LDs.

The great similarity between the 2001 and 2011 maps of the 36th Legislative District is quite evident when the two are superimposed on one another. Except for some very slight rejiggering in Belltown, the alterations consist of losing its portion of Fremont (to the 43rd) and gaining those parts of Greenwood and Phinney Ridge (from the 46th) that weren’t already in the District. The new 36th might possibly be a wee bit less Democratic than the old one — the western hillside of Fremont might be a tad bluer than the eastern hillside of Phinney Ridge — but there will be little change in the political nature of the LD. It remains a solidly Democratic bastion.

As a Fremont resident myself, I’m happy to see the new boundaries. Under the 2001 map, my precinct was smack-dab on the line between the 43rd and 36th, and at least one of the first-draft redistricting maps would have moved the border eastward, thereby transferring me into the 36th. Instead, the new 43rd covers 14 precincts that are home to quite a few former stalwarts of the 36th District Democrats, including a former LD chair and nearly half a dozen former Executive Board members of the old 36th. My precinct is now well inside the boundaries of the 43rd Legislative District, which extends around 10 blocks to my west.

When Mary Lou Dickerson decided to relinquish her House seat, a crowd of aspirants arose immediately. Of the seven declared candidates, one is a self-declared Progressive, one is a Republican (Paulista, actually), and the other five are Democrats. Sounds pretty typical for this solid blue LD.

There is general agreement among the Democrats on the issues. So perhaps the crux of the matter will come down to the candidates’ personal backstories. In alphabetical order, the Democrats are:

• Evan Clifthorne, legislative staffer for Senator Paull Shin (D-21) and native Washingtonian
• Sahar Fathi, staffer for Seattle City Councilmember Mike O’Brien and Iranian-American woman
• Noel Frame, state director of Progressive Majority, former campaign manager, native Washingtonian
• Brett Phillips, green building/energy efficiency expert, son of County Councilmember Larry Phillips, native of the 36th District
• Gael Tarleton, Port of Seattle Commissioner and national security analyst

In a very real sense, this election reminds me of the 2006 open-seat House race here in the 43rd. Back then, we had six excellent Democrats competing for the seat then held by Ed Murray, who was running for the State Senate. In that primary, Jamie Pederson won the Democratic nomination with just 23% of the vote. One difference between then and now is that in 2006 we were temporarily operating under the sensible Open Primary, Private Choice methodology (called Pick-a-Party by Sam Reed) rather than the ridiculous Top Two favored by the inane majority among us. Thus, winning the Democratic primary was tantamount to winning the general election. There was a Republican primary as well in 2006, wherein the winner drew far fewer votes than the sixth-place Democrat … but appeared on the November ballot.

There was no hint of negative campaigning in our 2006 primary in the 43rd. I’ve detected a hint of non-collegiality in the 36th, though there hasn’t been anything close to real mud-slinging. Perhaps the large number of candidates has prevented a repeat of the 36th’s ugly two-way 2008 race. Races actually, since the Top Two forced it to carry over from the primary to the general election. When there are lots of near-equivalent choices available, it wouldn’t be sensible to alienate any of the electorate. Assuming that two of the Democratic candidates will continue on to the November ballot, could the gloves come off post-primary? We’ll see…

[Read more…]

Roy Zimmerman with “Vote Republican,” the Virginia edition.

Sam Seder: Woops! GOP admits voter ID laws are a scam.

Health Care Ruling:

• Ed: The G.O.P. reaction
• Young Turks: The Wingnut Reaction.
• Jim McDermott weighs in.
• Stephen: John Roberts betrayal.
• Ted Strickland: Romney is the inventor of the individual mandate
• Sam Seder: Bill O’Reilly promised to “apologize for being an idiot” if Obamacare upheld.
• Ann Telnaes: Conservatives turn on John Roberts
• Young Turks: Can Romney repeal Romneycare?
• Obama and Romney: dueling SCOTUS reactions (via Indecision Forever)
• How Obama causes unemployment:
• Thom and Pap: Is it a tax?
• Young Turks: Republican threatening armed rebellion over Obamacare
• Jen: Play a little ‘Romney Feud’ with Jennifer Granholm
• Jon on reactions to the health care ruling.
• Young Turks: Rand Paul doesn’t buy the Constitutionality of Obamacare.
• Odonnell: The fallout.
• Al Sharpton: Some Republicans who used to support the “mandate”
• Jonathan Mann: Healthcare (I’ll take what I can get).:
• Al Sharpton covers it
• David Axerod: Penalty was fine with Romney in Massachusetts
• Young Turks: CNN & FAUX News’ BIG FAIL.

Thom: The Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.

Jon with Watergate-gate-gate-gate-gate (via Political Wire).

Mark Fiore: Little Suzie Newsykins on free speech—units.

Eric Schwartz brings back a classic.

Opening statements from 1st CD candidates debate 27 Jun.

Immigration Politics:

• Jon catches FAUX News lying through their motherfucking teeth.
• Liberal Viewer: FAUX News creates false Obama contradiction on immigration.
• Ann Telnaes: Scalia’s temper tantrum on immigration.
• Daily Kos Radio: Has Scalia lost his marbles?

Sam Seder: 63% of Republicans still believe there were WMD in Iraq at invasion.

Pap: Fighting the voter suppression tricks.

Ann Telnaes: Supreme Court strikes down Montana corporation campaign spending law .

Clinton and Bush: A Bad Lip Reading experience.

SlateNews: Sen. Rand Paul holds up key flood insurance bill with anti-abortion amendment.

Thom: More Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

RomneyWorld:

• Romney’s business experience.
• Maddow: Republicans see an enemy in their own candidate.
• Vetting Mitt’s Veeps: Gov. Chris Christie:
• Vetting Mitt’s Veeps: Gov. Bobby Jindal
• Actual Audio: Mitt Romney on…um, something.
• Romney retreat: What is he trying to hide?
• SlateNews: Romney raises millions after SCOTUS decision

Young Turks: The bizarre Texas GOP platform.

White House: West Wing Week.

Thom: The “two Black guys in the White House trying to take away our guns” conspiracy theory.

Sam Seder: Rush Limbaugh throws tantrum because you can’t jail someone for free speech

Senate candidate Tommy Thompson mistakes refers to 9/11 As 9/18 while bragging up his experience.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

My questions in bold, Gael Tarleton’s answers are below.

1) The state’s paramount duty is education. Do you feel the state is living up to that duty? If not, what needs to happen to live up to it?

We are not fully funding public education. It is the moral and constitutional obligation we must meet. To fully fund public education, we must think about providing early childhood education through lifelong learning. We need to change the discussion so that we prioritize funding to achieve shared education goals:

– We want 80 percent of high school students earning their high school diplomas 10 years from now. Therefore, we should fund public school systems to help them reach that goal – and that means working with teachers, administrators, parents and kids to help communities with the resources needed to succeed.

– We want early childhood learning centers in every school district in the state to be accessible and affordable. Therefore, we must fund programs in parts of the state with limited numbers of early childhood learning centers.

– We want our higher education system focused on serving our residents who are ready for college-level courses and technical school programs. Therefore, we must fund programs that help high school teachers and college deans and departmental chairs co-develop high school curricula, especially in English, Life Sciences, Foreign Languages, Applied Mathematics, and Sociology/History.

– Our higher educational institutions must have the No. 1 priority of making higher education affordable and accessible to all our citizens for lifelong learning. Any newly available revenues must immediately support hiring new teachers so that more courses are taught, which in turn will allow higher ed to admit more students each year. At a minimum, we should aspire to have 70 percent of incoming undergraduate students at our four-year institutions each year be Washington residents. We should expect and plan for having 90 percent of first- time students in our community colleges and technical schools be Washington residents. We must place special priority in the next decade on having our higher education system serve high school graduates from low-income and immigrant communities, returning veterans, and adults who have lost jobs and are preparing for a new career.

The most important task we face is to set shared goals now, develop a 10-year funding plan, and examine how existing revenues must be more effectively allocated to get to work on these four goals. As new revenues are available from various sources, we will have a strategic plan for how best to allocate those dollars.

We have the following options for public revenues: school bond levies in local jurisdictions; state tax revenues to support low-interest student loans, salaries, operations, capital infrastructure, and programmatic initiatives; federal grants to match state programs for student loans, free- and reduced-lunch programs; and potentially new taxes if the state’s Supreme Court upholds the King County ruling that I-1053 is unconstitutional.

From a budgeting and planning perspective, we must have two scenarios in mind: what we do if I-1053 is overturned, and what we do if it is not. The obligation to fully fund public education is the constant in a sea of uncertainty. How we meet this obligation is up to us. After working for eight years at the University of Washington to help secure millions of dollars in grants and gifts for faculty and students, I know the impact that these investments have on the economy, environment, and quality of life for all Washingtonians. We must meet this funding challenge.

2) Washington State voters recently rejected an income tax. Most of the revenue that the legislature might be able to pass is quite regressive. Will you push for revenue, and if so, how will you make sure the burdens don’t fall on the poorest Washingtonians?

Yes, I will be an advocate for the following kinds of revenue options and reforms:

– Examine the current constraints on how local jurisdictions, especially special-purpose districts, are able to use their existing taxing authority with property taxes.

– Develop strategies for enabling local jurisdictions to enter into time-limited partnerships where they create funding mechanisms for building a 21st Century infrastructure for a clean economy: multi-jurisdictional transit systems; construction and technology solutions to stop toxic runoff from local communities to protect Puget Sound, rivers and streams; shared investment in renewable energy infrastructure such as electric charging networks; and other capital-intensive investments that local jurisdictions cannot handle on their own.

– Develop a rate-paying “environmental infrastructure district” system to have all users pay into the equivalent of a public utilities district. This is the kind of progressive reform that makes all of us responsible for clean air and clean water infrastructure investments.

– Adopt “system tolling” on critical transportation corridors to fund regional transit solutions and safe pedestrian/bicycling corridors that separate freight and autos from bikes and pedestrian users.

– Identify a more fair and equitable way to use B&O revenues to reinvest in what small-business owners need most and do best: to help them hire and retain more employees, reduce the cost of start-up loans, incentivize innovative strategies for clean energy and clean trade; and make them the centerpiece of how we build a modern economy beyond fossil fuels.

– When we pass legislation regarding tax exemptions, we must understand what programs will be most affected by exempting private entities from paying their taxes. State legislators should identify what sources of revenue will be used to protect against the constant erosion of critical funding obligations resulting from tax exemptions.

3) There is a good chance that the State Senate and/or the Governor’s Mansion will be controlled by Republicans after the next election, and certainly most legislators will be more conservative than people who would be elected in a Seattle district. Given that how will you get your agenda passed?

There is an equally good chance that the Governor’s Mansion, State’s Attorney General, and both State legislative bodies will be controlled by Democrats. Recent Elway polls show that the state’s political climate and voter party affiliation are not growing more conservative: voters are instead becoming more independent. Some observers believe independents tend to vote Democratic more frequently than they vote Republican. The 36th District is frequently described as the anchor of liberal, progressive Seattle politics. It is also home to more than 20,000 working-class jobs in the Ballard-Interbay Manufacturing Industrial Center, including 15,000 jobs related to the fishing and seafood processing markets. There are thriving small business communities in every corner of the District. The District is where the working class and middle class co-exist. This strengthens our communities because we believe in teachers, metal workers, fishers, start-up companies, family-owned small businesses, parks for kids, and the dignity of work with living wages, regardless of the type of job a person might hold.

We have an aggressive agenda for job creation, expanding higher education affordability, providing healthcare, and protecting our environment. We are also home to a recreational boating industry that generates $3.5 billion in revenues across the state, as well as home to the grain terminal at Pier 86 that makes Washington’s agricultural firms competitive in a global economy where 90 percent of their business comes from exports through the Port of Seattle. When we focus on creating jobs, expanding markets for Washington companies, and strengthening opportunities for Washingtonians to pursue higher education, we will help legislators from all over the state share common cause.

That said, I’ve learned from experience that solutions to problems don’t happen with group think. I don’t just reach across the aisle; I’ve reached across continents and communities to do the hard work of creating jobs, building bridges, and protecting communities. To help create an international earthquake monitoring network, I worked with Russians and Ukrainians and the International Atomic Energy Agency. To fight human trafficking, I’ve worked with State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-36, and King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert. To help rebuild the South Park Bridge, I worked with the South Park Neighborhood Association, the Machinists, and colleagues at the Port, City, County and State to find the funding. And to build the Rental Car Facility that created more than 3,700 jobs in South King County, I worked with elected officials in the State Legislature as well as Sea-Tac, Des Moines, and Burien.

4) You’re running in a race with many Democrats who share similar positions. What separates you from the rest of the field?

We’re all asking the voters to hire us to do a job. We may share the same values, but we all have different experience and qualifications to do the job of a lawmaker. I’m asking the voters to hire me because I have the experience and skills of working in the public and private sectors creating jobs, solving difficult problems, and managing millions of dollars in budgets. When it comes to solving tough problems with responsible funding strategies, my experiences working in federal, state, and local governments as well as in a technology company and international markets give me a deep reservoir of ideas, lessons learned, and experts to help find solutions. These are the resources that will help me do the work that voters are hiring me to do.

As a Port Commissioner, I have helped create 7,000 living wage jobs through critical public works projects. At UW, I’ve worked with scientists, engineers, historians, political scientists, archeologists, musicians, and cybersecurity experts to help secure millions of dollars in grants and endowments for faculty and students. I’ve worked with legislators from all over the state to help criminalize human trafficking, create more open contracting laws, and build transit and transportation corridors that help our companies compete globally. To accelerate a clean, green trade agenda in Washington, I’ve supported partnerships with the Port of Seattle, WSU, Climate Solutions and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to develop an aviation biofuels market based in Washington, while also supporting investments in electrification and renewable energy infrastructure. And as a federal government employee, I’ve written policies and run programs regarding critical national security interests and concerns.

5) Seattle and King County give more to the state than they get back. Part of this is reasonable things like the cost of providing education and social services in rural and suburban areas, but part of it is a lack of respect for Seattle and King County with the legislature that treats us as an ATM. How will you make sure your district gets its fair share of revenue without harming education or social services throughout the state?

We all have a stake in the success of our schools and our students, regardless of their home base. We will all benefit if we have affordable access to public health centers and community clinics. We all share a stake in tackling climate change and building the foundation for a clean economy in the 21st century. If we reflect on how the concept of the public commons emerged in Washington, it will help us understand how to think about sharing resources with communities and regions that don’t live in our own backyard.

All property owners pay property taxes to build infrastructure and invest in healthy, safe communities. However, not all people who benefit from investments in the public commons are paying property taxes. Does that mean we stop paying our fair share of taxes? No. It would be short-sighted when we want to collectively improve the quality of life for everyone, not just the District we represent. The state pays only 7 percent of the annual operating costs of the University of Washington, its flagship public university. Just 20 years ago, the state paid closer to 40 percent of the total annual operating costs. Yet UW benefits the public commons of the whole state, Pacific Northwest, the nation and the world. UW’s nursing and public health graduates are the people who staff community health clinics and protect public health systems throughout the state and the Pacific Northwest. The UW School of Medicine receives $700 million a year from the federal government to educate the doctors who will be serving rural, low-income, and underserved communities with safe healthcare. Researchers at UW spawned the life sciences research community that has become home to the Gates Foundation, PATH, and Nobel Laureates – all in our district.

When we talk about who is getting their “fair share” of the tax pie, it is a familiar refrain that another part of the state benefits from King County’s and Seattle’s wealth. But the people in Seattle and King County who like to go skiing in the Cascades, own homes on Lake Chelan, go hiking on Mount Adams, or take weekends sampling wines in Walla Walla are only able to enjoy these benefits because they can fly there, drive there, drink clean water, and benefit from cheap electricity. And they benefit when their kids decide they’d rather go to school at WSU or Central Washington because they like the idea of dry, sunny weather three weeks in a row.

We will create jobs, opportunities, and a cleaner economy if we invest in research at Central Washington University or in social services for returning veterans in Tacoma or Yakima. The 36th District’s small businesses want to hire people who are prepared for jobs in the trades, fishing industry, biotechnology companies, or software start-ups. One of the most important roles I will play in Olympia for my district is making sure we are showing how tax revenues are used to create jobs, prepare employees for high-demand job markets, and give all our communities a chance to live a decent life and pursue affordable education.

My proposal to create a sustainable funding base for public health revolves around this idea of a shared stake in a common network. The “Public Access To Health Services” (PATH) center calls for reforming the way we use property tax authority of special purpose districts in the state. If we allow special purpose districts to share their property taxes to create local health centers, we stand a chance of putting public health services on a sustainable financial path. My district would help lead the way, as we have thousands of public health professionals, caregivers, and small business owners who would be potential partners in making affordable health care, family planning, adult day care, and other essential services available to our communities.

Our district also believes in investing in a clean economy future. Our ideas and know-how for designing and building environmental infrastructure systems for homeowners and small business owners will create best practices for others around the state. When we share knowledge and solutions that help our own communities, we are creating the foundation for helping all Washingtonians live in healthy, safe communities where they will enjoy a better quality of life.

For all of the discussion of how the new arena in SoDo would hurt traffic, you’d think this would be a bigger deal.

Coal trains can easily be 8,000 feet long, which means that it takes more than 6 minutes to clear a street crossing when traveling at 15 mph, a pretty typical speed in an urban area. Then factor in 30 seconds of street closure time for warning signals to sound or crossing arms to stop traffic, plus 30 seconds to re-start traffic after the train has cleared the intersection. Add it all up and you get this: Bellingham’s new loaded coal trains would completely cut off street intersections by somewhere between 105 minutes and 125 minutes of every day.

I don’t want to be disingenuous here. I support more rail infrastructure at the port and oppose the coal trains for non-traffic reasons much more than this. Still, if the trains come, hopefully they come with more infrastructure to mitigate this.