October 27, 2005

Ian thanks a reader ...

Hey Chris, Thanks for your emails on the Exec race. You're right. Our current system does a poor job reflecting the multitude of political opinions in our politics. Makes you wish we had a proportional representation system sometimes ... although occasionally, it seems like we might be better served by deciding our elections like these guys (OMG, I can't actually believe there's a World Champion at Rock, Paper, Scissors...read it and be, nonplussed!). But I think I've got a better way than IR (though not quite as good as PR, but in this democracy, we've got to take baby steps). It's called Fusion Voting. Basically, it "registers" the hard work of parties that aren't Democrats and Republicans at the ballot box while preventing "spoiler" situations like Ralph Nader in 2000. For example, Ron Sims could also register with the "Green Party" label. Then, any votes he accumulates under that label go to him. Say he wins by a few points, and the Greens make the difference. Instant recognition of Green as a force in our County, and the opportunity for countless smaller parties to "represent." It's already law in New York. We could run a statewide measure to make it law. Or just keep voting for Green candidates that get a few percentage points at the expense of Ron. You know Irons won't be supporting any kind of growth management ... but I can't tell you how to vote. I could only point a finger if Ron lost by a few. -Ian

Posted by Tom Brown at October 27, 2005 02:28 PM Comments ... and discovers something about Penny Pen Noticed on my way in today that Penny Pen, the mascot of King County elections, is an organ donor. Translating into Republican-eze, every time you vote, Penny is spilling the blood of freedom on your ballot. Try to make good use of it. - Ian Posted by Tom Brown at October 27, 2005 02:25 PM Comments October 25, 2005 Let's talk initiatives Updated Oct. 27, 2:15 p.m. Will and Ian continue their give-and-take on initiatives. The new entries have been added at the bottom of this thread. First, we hear from Will, who seems a little undecided: Smoke or not? With I-901, I'm actually quite truthfully more than a little torn on which way to go. On the one hand, smoking is a rather nasty habit and people shouldn't have to be exposed to the noxious fumes that compose second-hand smoke. In a perfect world, people wouldn't smoke just because it's bad for them. Alas, people still do. And government shouldn't tell private business owners who want to permit smoking, as foul as it is, to stop smokers in their establishments from smoking. A close reading of what the law will do seems to indicate that pretty much all restaurants, bars, or assorted locations will have to basically declare smoking illegal on their premises Here's the pro. And the con. So, as unpopular as I may become (again :-) by saying what will probably be the minority opinion amongst us enlightened Backyard Bloggers, I probably won't vote in favor of the initiative. But what do you guys think? I might be dissuaded, you never know ... Moving on to Senate Joint Resolution 8207, this one seems like a no-brainer. What is it, though? Essentially, the amendment would allow one member of the Commission on Judicial Conduct to be selected by and from the judges of all courts of limited jurisdiction by replacing the term "district court judges" with "limited jurisdiction court judges." This would allow municipal court judges to join district court judges in serving on the commission. It seems like a good idea to me. Oh, and then there's I-900 too, lest we forget. This Tim Eyman-sponsored proposal would seriously beef up the state auditor's office with a 50 percent budget increase and more power to single out underperforming or not-up-to-par agencies and hold them accountable. And if you can't stomach the fact that Eyman's "behind it all" (who else?), here's a nice little article explaining the perhaps surprising and really quite unlikely pairing of Eyman and the state auditor, Brian Sonntag, who's *gasp!* a Democrat, to get this initiative on the ballot. Eyman's even got lots and lots of newspapers to actually endorse him for a change, which in and of itself is very interesting and actually kind of amusingly ironic. Normally, he gets shot at like a clay pigeon for pretty much all of his initiatives. Here's some bloggers who don't like the idea. But I think it'll save some valuable dough we can use in the long-term, on things like fixing up our state's transportation infrastructure. What do you guys think? Am I wrong or am I right? -Will Ian elects not to inhale Hey, Will. You've really been doing your homework on all the issues out there. I need a slap on the wrist...all the candidate and issue mailings for the election are collecting on my dining room table, being neglected. While I'll definately vote for I-901, you've brought up a good point about the measure. I can already hear Garrett chiming in with you, Will, in declaring that government shouldn't be in the business of telling us what to do. So here's my entirely selfish reason for supporting this measure: I want to head out on a Friday to hang out with my friends, and not come home smelling like I've been showering in ashes all night (not to mention breathing them in). Right now, this means I go much less, since there's usually no way to avoid it. My non-selfish reasons are there are plenty of health benefits for non-smoking patrons, and certainly the staff, and I'm fully on the side that believes business will actually increase because of the ban. My hesitation about the measure is the "reasonable distance" outdoor rule. The way I understand it, not only can there be no smoking inside, but for 25 or so feet outside. So does that mean a bar or club can't have, for example, a smoking porch just outside for those that want to light up? I've heard that if the measure passes, these kinds of issues will be worked out by local Departments of Health. And here's why I'm probably going to vote yes...I trust that these folks will be fair in how they work out this measure. But we're all going to have to watch to make sure this new law doesn't get abused simply to shut down clubs and bars people don't like. The ban is likely to pass, but hardcore smokers should relax...I've heard that other states that have passed this law have also started allowing "smoking club", where you can enjoy all the benefits of sucking a vareity of chemicals into your lungs with others that like to do the same. -Ian Warning, says Ian, flippant comment to follow Well, of course Sonntag is supporting Eyman's initiative. He's the State Auditor... it would give him more responsibilities. That's like asking me if someone else should pay to pimp out my car. Heck yea! - Ian Yes, but ... Good point, Ian, but it's not just Sonntag, it's a whole bunch of other Dems led by Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, who's tried to get legislation like this underway for a decade now. I'm interested in what Natasha thinks of this, as the Progressive bloggers ain't happy. Besides, just because the state auditor likes the idea doesn't necessarily imply it's a bad thing, as it's really up to us, and not him, if we want to pass I-900. -Will But why trust Eyman? See, and I was going to say that just because Sonntag is behind it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. Eyman has never done anything helpful for our state, anyway, so why should I expect he's started to now? Plus, the Legislature already passed a bill that does exactly this last session, and spends less of our money to do it. Why should I trust a Tim Eyman measure that does the same thing? What's the catch? Oh, right, Tim hates taxes, and that any taxes are used to help anyone but him. I don't always agree with the Stranger (though it does seem like a lot of the time I do) but their "No" endorsement on 900 makes a lot of sense to me (our host Seattle Times Ed board says vote Yes, BTW). Tim's been roughed up in the last few years with bad choices, bad ballot measures, and bad press. I think he's looking for an easy win with 900 so he can try and return his agenda to defunding our state government. And I think, at the least, he's probably going to get his easy win. As to the rest... -Ian Posted by Tom Brown at October 25, 2005 02:47 PM Comments Now, a few words from readers First, from Chris Corfman, who sent along three e-mails: There are three candidates for King County Executive, not two. This begs the question: Do you have a clue what your rambling about? Please show you are informed and have intelligence--include all 3 candidates. ----- Good blogging; but short on history. Remember the vote a few years back on whether or not the Port of Seattle should build a third runway at SeaTac? The voters said, No Third Runway. Ron Sims was on the council then that IGNORED THE VOTE, and began construction on the 3rd runway anyway. (I think he was even the leader of the council then.) But compared to Irons, he's a good guy. I'm sure you bloggers could find many juicy examples. We need a King County Executive who will use the economy to serve the people, and not the other way around. Ron Sims does, as long as he's not under too much corporate pressure. Irons sucks the corporate rod with diligence. Lange might be a better choice. ----- Since the elections board is an issue in the 2005 King County Executive race, shouldn't we be talking about Instant Runoff voting? It's legal, fair, and efficient; but the two major parties are afraid of it because it would diminish the two party power hold on politics. And so we now have a primary system that most people really hate--many even refusing to vote because of it. We need a solid, for the long term, voting system, and not the "fix" we now have. Gentry Lange of the Green party, who is running for King County Executive, would, I believe, support Instant Runoff voting. The other two candidates would not because of their chicken politics. And now, here's Al Dorow, who wades into the medical malpractice quagmire:: I-330 simply gives a theoretical preferential treatment to doctors and insurance companies. This is an accepted business practice. Cities and governments provide incentives in the form of preferential treatment by reducing taxes, expenses of doing business or making special concessions that is not available to others. Doctors here, and I would presume the insurance companies, want the same thing. The question is what does the public get for this? Not much in my view. [Insurance] Commissioner Kreider’s report along with the report from Public Citizen shows that this initiative isn’t going to drop rates. Public Citizen is quite direct in indicating I-330 will not drop rates. To me it looks that I-330 isn’t going to make coverage’s for the ObGyn affordable and more available. By giving these concessions. the public is not going to get better access to coverage. The real issue is one where a few doctors are having big dollar losses that are being paid by others. The Public Citizen reports talks about doctors with multiple losses who should not be part of the group. Without actions that remove the worst offending doctors the experience isn’t going to improve. The Public citizen report documents the large payments made on behalf of a small number of doctors. The first order should be policing and this appears to be what I-336 will do. The second order is to fully study the issue. Remember the legislature could not come to agreement on this subject after extensive work. The issues are complex and I-330 seems to be a call of frustration, self-centered and puts a finger in the eye of the legal field. I-330 isn’t gong to solve the issues for the doctors. It does draw attention. Commissioner Kreider’s office is the proper areas to further detail these issues. I-336 if it passes should provide tacit and direct support to the commissioner’s office. Here is what the commissioner said “However, we still lack the authority to require specific information that could shine a light on the real trouble areas in the medical malpractice market,” he added. “Now is the time to develop clear and consistent requirements for reporting claim and settlement information. It’s time to move from policy decisions based on anecdotes to decisions based on data that can really solve problems. I intend to push for legislation again in 2006 that would give my office the authority we need to better assess the health of the medical malpractice market.” The third order is to increase the insurance carrier numbers. Until Washington deals with problem doctors, why would more insurance carriers come into the state? Currently the major writers are Physicians Insurance and The Doctors Company. Without more carriers in the state there wouldn’t be the competition and the resultant upgrading of carriers. Washington’s own domiciled carrier, Physician’s Insurance is a doctor-owned company with a board controlled by doctors and with a B++ rating and a negative outlook from Bests, the benchmark rating service. Having strongly rated carriers in Washington is part of the solution. It is interesting that on the I-330 website that under supporting businesses Mutual of Enumclaw is listed but not Physicians Insurance. There must be something here I don’t understand. There must be some irony here. Physicians Insurance is a doctors company and I-330 is a project of Doctors for Sensible Lawsuit Reform. I-330 doesn’t appear to be solving the problem of affordability and availability. I-336 does begin to address the issues. I-330 does bring a toehold to tort reform in general and perhaps there is a reason for some to vote yes. Since I-330 is proposed as a doctor issue I am treating it as such. I feel the best vote is no on I-330 and yes on I-336. Posted by Tom Brown at October 25, 2005 02:24 PM Comments October 20, 2005 Editor's note: Here's a thread dealing with a number of questions that began last week. It incorporates a post from Natasha that was initially put up last Friday Will gets the a new thread spinning Hi everyone! Well, to get back into the swing of blogging local political things, what do you guys think about Ron Sims? Is Dave Irons a better choice? Should Sims be canned in favor of a fresh, conservative face? What do we think!? :-) -Will Natasha replies on Ron Sims and fiscal responsibility Ah yes, let's have something new, just for the heck of it. But first, let's take a look at Standard & Poor's credit rating for King County: "Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its rating on King County, Wash.'s approximately $1.774 billion outstanding GO bonds to 'AAA' from 'AA+' reflecting the county's exceptional financial management through the spectrum of economic climates. ..." One of the most important things to me in a local government position is fiscal responsibility. Ron Sims has shown that he can be trusted with the cash register and it's a rare Republican politician that you can leave alone with the till. What's not refreshing about a AAA credit rating, anyway? Republicans are running the entire federal government and it didn't take them very long at all to turn vast surpluses into crushing debt. Frankly, they haven't done so well at the state level in most places either. While the fiscal shenanigans going on in the other Washington might indeed be something new to try, I'm happy as is. Though I almost, almost, feel sorry for Republicans this election season. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is getting investigated by the SEC for illegal stock dealings, the ink is barely dry on former House Majority Leader Tom Delay's resignation from that post (or his two lovely indictments for fraud,) and senior people in the Bush White House are being investigated for blowing the cover of both a CIA agent and an entire CIA front company. Then you're having to try and tell voters that they can let Republicans alone with money, believe in their ethical standards and trust that they won't put their party affiliation ahead of the public interest. That's got to be tough. -Natasha Not so fast Natasha, says Will There's more to good governance than our county's rating on Standard & Poor. I'm more interested in how well our elections get handled, and after last year's near fiasco, with its drawn-out conclusion and blundered results, Sims, not Dean Logan, should be ultimately responsible. And yet Sims stands by his man no matter what, saying "I continue to have full faith and confidence in Director Dean Logan and believe the people of this county are best served by allowing him to finish the election reforms needed." Say what? No matter what your political persuasion, the mess was so very bad last fall that the buck has to stop somewhere, and that somewhere is the desk of Ron Sims, a really nice guy who's made some really bad calls. As a matter of fact, we're still sorting through last year's ickyness, with even more errors being revealed in the voter name rolls (see here and here. Yikes! That's a real cause for concern, no matter what your political persuasion. If heads should roll for anything, it's got to be for messing up on something as important as a statewide election. Sims is seeking a third term, and has only tepid support even among his core. It's time for someone new to head King County, and that person is Dave Irons. Moving on — Natasha, thank you for your sympathy for the GOP, but it's sadly misplaced. The guy going after DeLay (Ronnie Earle — an avowed and very partisan Democrat) makes Ken Starr seem like an angel. Furthermore, do you honestly think that Karl Rove would purposely "blow the cover" of a CIA agent and an operation, just because? As far as Frist is concerned, it's not as if he's trying to hide anything. And before we gleefully start jumping up and down on his political coffin, shouldn't we look at all the facts first? -Will And what about Southwest and Boeing field?, asks Ian Natasha, I hope we (you and I) have more good things to sayabout Ron Sims than getting the county a AAA bond rating. I mean, sure, good credit is great and all, but, and I'm sorry if i'm lifting from Will, it's, uh, boring. (wow, a business actually owns this address ...though it is somewhat appropriate. The owner even has a fansite.) See what wonderful things you can discover when you're bored (and have an internet connection)? The whole Southwest/King County Airport thing is far more interesting to me, as is the recent Republican filing about some 3,000-odd voters they're claiming are double-registered (or something...I can't seem to manage the time to read the full articles these days). I'm surprised the number isn't higher than that. I mean, unless you're super-responsible, how high on the list is changing your voting address when you've just packed and unpacked hundreds of boxes? I bet most of these folks just registered again, they probably had no idea they could even change their address. I partially agree with Will that the buck does stop with Ron. But the biggest problem is, he doesn't have any bucks to work with. The County budget has been hacked up so many times, there's barely anything left to work with. So before you start proclaiming David Irons as the golden boy, Will, take a look at the squabbling about County Council members over fixing the election problems...they're all just as responsible in the end. Back to Southwest and King County Airport for those of you that haven't been following. Gee, can anyone think of another local, public airfield that is probably tripping all over itself for a shot at Southwest? -Ian And about those two prosecutors, Will Hey Will, There's a multitute of problems with your comparison of Ken Starr and Ronnie Earl, but let me just stick with the biggest one. Ken Starr spent millions of dollars and wasted years simply to find that Bill Clinton digs the ladies, but didn't do anything illegal. A grand jury never found enough evidence to send Clinton to trial, so Starr referred his "possible charges" to a Republican-controlled Congress where — surprise — they voted to impeach. Note the stark contrast, Will, in the Tom DeLay case, where a grand jury has found enough vidence for a trial on TWO charges. In other words, Starr couldn't get anyone but Republicans to agree, while average citizens, in the privacy of a grand jury trial, have agreed with Earle. Hmm. Wonder which of these verdicts I should trust? Aren't you R's always saying we should trust the people? -Ian Natasha fires back to Will on Sims and Earle Will, You're right, there's plenty more to good governance than the S&P rating. But this is a county position, where fiscal responsibility is just about the top issue. Considering the scant attention that gets paid to local politics, it's important to try and put people there that don't need much watching. Thing is, your initial argument was that it would be good to try someone new because he's a Republican. All I'm saying is that Brand Republican has seen better days. Someone in the White House, at least two "senior official" someones in fact, did leak the name of a CIA agent working in counter-proliferation. Someone leaked the name of the CIA front company that she and an unknown number of other agents used as a cover, burning all those agents and probably anyone they've had contact with over the years. This was done to take revenge on the agent's husband, who had the audacity to confirm that the president slipped a fib in the State of the Union. Not only does that sound like treason, it has doubtless jeopardized the lives of every contact Valerie Plame and her co-workers at that front company cultivated. Maybe it was Lewis Libby instead of Karl Rove, maybe it was both of them. All I care about is seeing the person who did it kept far, far away from classified information for the rest of their lives. If an ordinary soldier or civil servant had done this, they'd be fired and possibly in jail already. As to the rest, Ronnie Earle has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans and Sen. Frist may be claiming innocence but the investigators are turning up the heat. Why should law enforcement throw the book at Martha Stewart and shrug off powerful politicians? Back here at home, yes it's too bad the last election didn't go perfectly. The media always reports the results as though the percentages matched up to exact totals, but they never have. Though in contrast to Florida's 2000 election, the last election was reviewed in excruciating detail three times before a final result was announced. A judge that gave Dino Rossi's side every possible opportunity dismissed "with prejudice" the claim that there was any deliberate wrongdoing. The courts decided that the election was fair and our Republican secretary of state agreed. The courts decided what ballots could be counted and our elections officials are doing what they can to make the system stand up better in the future. Also, when I moved last year, it wasn't more than three weeks later that I got a letter from King County saying that they had reason to believe I'd moved and would suspend and then cancel my registration if they didn't hear back from me. I hadn't contacted them at all and suspect they've been paying attention to change of address forms. I think that yes, they're really working hard to improve the system and ferret out all the errors over there. If there are duplicate names left in the system, I'm sure they'll be cleaned up by election time. Nonetheless, it's a little insulting to suggest that those voters would necessarily try and game the system by going back to their previous polling place for another ballot. I usually remember to register in a panic about a month before an election and I only used to vote in the major elections so that could mean a lot of address changes in between. I'm sure that over all the times I've moved and re-registered without remembering what address they had on file from last time, there might have been times when my name accidentally ended up on two voter rolls at once. But I'd be horrified at the idea of trying to double-dip and I think that the vast majority of people feel the same way. -Natasha Will replies to all, and asks for Garrett's thoughts Ah, come on guys! I thought we were talking about Rons Sims here. Half of what we're talking about reminds me of the "nuclear option" that lay before Congress earlier in the year in regards to judicial nominees (for a brief history of that immortal phrase, see here and here. But are we talking about Bush and his team or Sims and King County? That said, I can see why you'd want to discuss "Brand Republican." So let me just direct you all here. (You'll probably have to watch an advertisement to get a silly "site pass," but it's worth it). The Economist gives a really rather fair overview of the nagging "scandals" that are currently bugging President's Bush administration. 'Nuff said. Again, good points well taken Ian, but the whole thing's a little too Texas-style fishy for me. Moving on, really, Irons is a good option not JUST because he's a Republican (don't get me wrong, I don't mind :-), but he IS the only other alternative, and an experienced one at that. Sims' not-so-stellar handling of the Southwest Airplanes decision at Boeing Field might also cost him some votes. And Natasha, thank you for the anecdote, proving your point by actual experience. Yes, the elections folks here in King County have come a long way and this next election should (hopefully) go OK. Garrett, what do you think of all this? -Will OK, so what about Irons?, Ian asks Okay, sure, let's talk some more about David and Ron. It seems pretty clear that Irons is going to run the same playbook as Dino Rossi did against Gregoire last year. But I must admit I don't know much about Irons. Not that I'm considering voting for him, but in the spirit of fair play, who is this guy, anyway? And what has Sims done to incur your ire, Will (besides the obvious of being a Democrat)? Ian Right on, Ian! Well, if Irons is adopting (or rather, has adopted) some of the Dino�s charisma and broad appeal, then all the more power to him. As we all know, Rossi nearly won (shy 129 votes out of the entire state, mind you) and so if Irons can keep up his Dino-like, conservatively positive vibe, then I think he�s going to win soundly. And it�s not just me saying that either. Check out this really cool new poll from KING 5 Irons has 46 percent of the votes, Sims has 43 percent. The accompanying article also does a nice job describing exactly who he is too, in case you�re still curious, Ian. Anyway, such solid numbers are a good sign, specifically considering we�re coming down to the final stretch here. Basically, Irons is a veteran councilman who is fiscally conservative and has been good at what he does, which is effectively manage bureaucracy, and King County has a lot of it. Sims isn�t a bad guy, but coming up on his third term, he�s carrying a lot of not-so-good decisions with him. His unwavering support of Dean Logan, who really mismanaged the last election, his mishandling of the whole Boeing Field debacle (basically doing a 180 degree turn on everybody) and numerous missteps in how the county handles small issues, like, hmmm, the CAO nightmare, for instance, mean it�s time for a real change in leadership. Again, don�t ask me. Talk to Karen Rispoli, who won 20 percent of the vote against Sims in last month�s primary. She hasn�t done the customary, "Aw shucks, I lost, now go vote for the other guy since we�re at least from the same party." Rispoli has ENDORSED DAVE IRONS. Neat, huh? Now I got to go read my latest voters guide to figure out who to vote for in some of the "smaller" (but still very important) races. -Will Posted by Tom Brown at October 20, 2005 02:16 PM Comments October 10, 2005 Oh, mayor? Greg Nickels, barring some horrible public relations fiasco/scandal/nightmarish revelation, will most likely be re-elected come November 8 as the leader of the Emerald City. Doesn�t that strike anyone as a little anticlimactic? Now, I�m from way out in Snoqualmie, at the very easterly edge of King County, so this is just a spectator sport for me. But since I could very well be living nearer my university come this time next election, I do have some roundabout interest in how it all plays out. Furthermore, Seattle�s a little unusual this year among major cities with its dearth of candidates to oppose the status quo. I mean, come on, lots of other cities smaller than Seattle are having far more exciting races, including Saint Paul, Minn., and Albuquerque, N.M. But all is not lost! There is one person who�s actually running some sort of campaign in defiance of Mayor Nickel�s well-oiled re-election machine. A former University of Washington professor, historian and scholar, Al Runte, got some 20,949 votes, or about 22% of the total, in last month�s primary. By comparison, Mayor Nickels got some 54,449 votes, or about 57.2% of the total. Even if all the other five minor candidates� supporters all flew to Runte�s banner, his election to the head of city hall is still a long shot. But who the heck is he, really? He�s definitely an unlikely candidate, having never run for office before. But what does he stand for (or on, for that matter)? Several Washington bloggers, especially amongst my lefty friends, have tried, actually quite successfully, to answer that question. Very much a progressive-style Democrat, Dr. Runte is basically upset, for various and sundry reasons, at how our current mayor runs the city, including how the Monorail mess is going down. He�s an environmentalist, and decidedly not a fan of development. The question, however, still remains. Why isn�t there a bigger name ready to duke it out with the incumbent this year? Maybe some bonafide (in Latin, bona fides: �in good faith�) Seattleite out there wants to weigh in for us? -Will Posted by William Thomas Mari at October 10, 2005 03:24 PM Comments October 05, 2005 It's Natasha and Will on I-912 Will, No, there really isn't a better way because every time the legislature comes up with a way to pay for roads a referendum comes along and slashes the funding. It gets cut and cut and cut. Now some things need fixing, 270 plus projects all across the state, and the money isn't there. The Department of Transportation has even done a good job with the money raised from the last limited transportation tax, which you can hear straight from the mouth of a Republican state legislator whose vote for the 9.5 cent gas tax was her first vote since 1994 for any kind of tax increase. If you've looked into the state of our local roads, then you should realize that this is an emergency. The backers of I-912 are never going to meet a tax they like and while some sit around with pie-in-the-sky dreams of the perfect funding measure which will make everyone happy, lives and livelihoods are being put at risk. Transportation has been underfunded for years and the state has to start somewhere. best, n Will responds Natasha, Good links and points, as usual. But the point remains that that pesky clause 'protecting' the tax from recall is unconstitutional. That alone is enough reason to yank it by voting for I-912. Yes, we have a bona fide transportation emergency here in Washington, but fixing it by compounding our errors is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem. Take it away, Natasha Will, Sure, that sounds fine. We'll just put it off another whole year, or two. Heck, let's wait another five years until the 520 bridge is about ready to be knocked over with a feather. And surely we won't be unlucky enough to have any earthquakes or big storms while we're waiting around for a piece of perfect legislation to be passed and the price of fuel to go back to a dollar a gallon. Maybe the whole state can cross its fingers in unison once yearly to keep the bad luck away until we make up our minds. Really, I don't know what you expect the state legislators to do. Even when bridges are getting ready to fall on people's heads, the funding to fix them is subjected to this sort of knee-jerk public attack. When they use their perfectly legal constitutional right to declare a bill an emergency measure, your response is to ignore the warnings they've acted on and wrongly accuse them of overstepping their authority. It seems obvious to me that I-912 would be on the ballot whether or not they'd used their emergency authority because some people just don't want to pay for the roads they use or get their goods by, end of story. At this point, you're basically admitting that we really do need to fix these things, which is halfway to admitting that we really need to pay for the work. Lives are at stake and I think you know as well as I do that if the legislature had done something illegal in this, Tim Eyman or some merry band of twits would already be preparing their court briefs. Meanwhile, our roads are still crumbling, maybe you and Garrett can pave them with freedom. -Natasha Respond with your comments on I-912 Posted by at October 5, 2005 02:39 PM Comments Note how Ian deftly moves from the gas tax to a state income tax Hey man, don't get me wrong. The gas tax doesn't make much sense as a way to fund transportation. I've never liked it. Though there is some justice in making those that drive pay more than those that don't, you're right that the gas tax isn't fair to those that are forced to commute, or those that have no other option. But we don't have any other way to pay for this stuff...or wait, maybe we do? To quote you: "For all the pretty rhetoric by the Democratic machine about working men and women, we were instituting the most regressive of taxes." So you'll be supporting a statewide income tax, then? Ian Garrett responds Touch� my leftward friend. It always comes back to the income tax does it not. Well, I do agree that we need to focus on transportation funding; however, raising the gas tax now is kicking the taxpayer when they are down, dazed, and broke. A great tactic for professional wrestling but probably not good government. -Garrett Ian's response I'm with you, but crumbling bridges and deteriorating roads call for something, right? Plus, from what I've read, 912 isn't extravagant in its spending, it simply makes critical needed safety and road improvements in the Puget sound AND Eastern Washington. So if not an income tax, how can I get you to help pay for this stuff? Oh, and PS - there are enviros supporting keeping the gas tax hike. Gasp! How often does that happen, enviros supporting roads? C'mon man, vote no so you can say you sided with enviros, just this once! Unless you're actually considering it...I should pocket my vote favor from you for something bigger... Posted by at October 5, 2005 02:26 PM Comments The Backyard Bloggers go at it over the gas tax Will starts it: Hey Garret, What do you (and the other guys too) think about I-912, the repeal the three-phase, 9.5-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase the Legislature enacted last spring?tI think it's a cool idea and one that'll probably pass come November. -Will Natasha comes right back Will, Are you going to think it's such a great idea to have repealed the gas tax when the Alaskan Way Viaduct collapses and the entire state suffers from poor access to the Port of Seattle? The thing has shifted four inches since the last earthquake and it could kill thousands of people. State engineers are worried that a severe windstorm could take out the 520 bridge, and that also poses a hazard to life and pocket book. If it were politically feasible, both structures should be condemned immediately, having reached the end of their natural shelf life. Concrete isn't forever. Those are only the most high-profile local examples, but I-912 will defund crucial projects for safety and improved commercial transport all over the state. The business community is behind the tax and it passed the legislature with broad, bipartisan support. We can't expect to have roads that get us to work and our goods to market, but then not have to pay for them. Regards, Natasha Ian chimes in I don't really see anything cool about it. I suppose if I drove more I might care, but even someone filling up every week (in a responsible non-gas guzzler with a 12 gallon tank, of course, all you SUV drivers made your own bed) would only save about $60 a year. Seems kinda silly to me for all the road work we'd get instead. Aren't you eastsiders always complaining about how bad the roads are, anyway? But maybe i'm just a "square"...learn me what makes it such a "cool idea", daddy-o. Ian Will's feeling outnumbered Natasha. Well no, but surely there must be a better way than by taxing everybody some more ... again. I've written several papers in various physics and even my English classes on how dangerous the Viaduct is and why it's got to go, so I know that it's a problem, along with that safe little pontoon we call the 520. Both need to be fixed, but the gas tax has NO plan or accountable goal/project to fund. It's more taxes without introspection, I say. And yes, I've read the passionate and thoughtful arguments against it from my comrades on the left. But the 9.5 cent tax got rushed through at the last second without any serious ebate in the legislature, and an "emergency clause" was grafted onto it to keep WA state citizens from asking for a referendum on it -which is more than just a teensy bit unconstitutional and should be more than enough to raise a huge, reddish-colored flag. I-912 would stop this rampaging tax elephant and force us to actually think about how to fix our state's transportation problems. That's what's "cool" about it :-). Garrett, a little back-up here? I'm outnumbered! Garrett arrives Ian, my friend, I was wondering how to address this question and again you are my inspiration. Forever it stuck my odd that the liberal regime in Olympia felt that it was a good idea in the middle of a gas crises to raise the cost of gas by taxing it even more. Were these not the same people bemoaning the gouging of consumers by "big oil" and at the same time advocating the gouging of taxpayers by "big government? For all the pretty rhetoric by the Democratic machine about working men and women, we were instituting the most regressive of taxes. I kept thinking about everyone who lives on the Peninsula, Eastern Washington, or any other place in our state where driving 15 miles to the grocery store is simply a way of life; where a school bus ride can take an hour, and farm equipment does not run on air. Then I realized this is not an issue of the viaduct, or some other desire for the whole state to subsidize liberal Seattle. No, Ian hit the nail on the head. This is really about social engineering; about making people's lives so miserable that they give up their cars and take the bus, or perhaps walk to work. The gas tax represents a movement that says that government knows best for people and therefore needs to use incentives by either tax breaks (a carrot) or raising taxes (a stick) in order for them to live by Olympia's rules. I for one think it is we the people who should make these decisions. To quote an earlier generation, with very different politics than mine: "Freedom baby...freedom" Weigh in on the gas tax here Posted by at October 5, 2005 11:24 AM Comments Marketplace Jobs Autos Shopping Homes Rentals Post an ad September 2006 S M T W T F S           1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ARCHIVES November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 RECENT ENTRIES Ian thanks a reader ... ... and discovers something about Penny Pen Let's talk initiatives Now, a few words from readers Oh, mayor? It's Natasha and Will on I-912 Note how Ian deftly moves from the gas tax to a state income tax The Backyard Bloggers go at it over the gas tax Powered by Movable Type 3.2 seattletimes.com home Home delivery | RSS feeds | Low-graphic | Search archive Site map | webmaster@seattletimes.com | Contact us | Privacy statement | Terms of service NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertise with us | The Seattle Times Company Back to top