Supreme Court Fair Elections bill would maintain the integrity of our highest court

To what should a judge’s first allegiance be? To the rule of law, or to the organization that helped him get elected by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on his behalf?

Would you like to oppose a group in court who funded the election campaign of your presiding judge? So much for equal protection under the law.

This year, three Washington State Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection. Will we see a repeat of 2006, when a record $4.2 million was spent campaigning for just three Washington Supreme Court seats? We can only hope not and unfortunately it’s too late to prevent it, but there’s still time do something about the 2012 race.

Public campaign finance advocacy group Washington Public Campaigns is fighting to pass a Supreme Court Fair Elections bill that will create a program of optional public financing of state Supreme Court campaigns.

Here’s how the bill works according to Washington Public Campaigns:

The Supreme Court Fair Elections bill will create a public financing program, optional for candidates seeking election to the supreme court only. Candidates would qualify for public funds by raising at least $41,055 in contributions of $10-$400, from at least 500 citizens. This qualifies them for a set sum for a primary race, and if they win, an additional sum for the general election - amounts sufficient to run a competitive, robust campaign.

If a candidate is outspent by a traditionally-funded opponent or faces opposition from independent PACs, they receive matching "rescue funds" - up to capped limits set in the bill.

The program would begin once $3 million (per biennium) has been generated by a small surcharge of $1 on court filing fees - paid by users of the court, not by taxpayers.

Seven states already have “clean elections” programs for some political offices. North Carolina has offered optional public financing to statewide judicial candidates since 2004, and the program has been not only increasingly popular, but successful as well. In 2006, eight out of twelve candidates ran a publicly financed election, including five out of the six winners.

Running for office on public, no-strings-attached money works. The top benefit for the candidate is that it allows her to focus on the issues and on voters, not on fundraising. For their part, voters like knowing that their interests won't be put behind those of well-heeled donors.

This fall, all of Washington’s state representatives and half of its senators will be running for reelection. One question we should ask these candidates is whether or not they support publicly financed elections. Clean elections bills in the legislature are not going away.

Creating a program for state Supreme Court elections is a good start, but public campaign financing would strengthen the integrity of all office holders. After achieving Supreme Court public financing, Washington Public Campaigns hopes to expand the program, and loosen money and lobbyist’s hold on even more of Washington’s elected officials.

Let’s make elections about issues and voters, not fundraising. Democracy and justice shouldn’t be for sale.

John Murtha: 1932-2010

Sad news... Pennsylvania's longest-serving United States Representative has died:

Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a gruff ex-Marine who was one of the most hawkish Democrats in Congress but who became an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, died on Monday in Arlington, Va. He was 77.

He died while under treatment for complications of gallbladder surgery, his office said.

The first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress, Mr. Murtha voted in 2002 to authorize use of military force in Iraq. But he evolved into a leading foe of the war as it was conducted under the administration of President George W. Bush.

Murtha will also remembered for challenging Steny Hoyer for the position of House Majority Leader in late 2006, as Democrats prepared to take control of Congress.

Murtha's decision to speak out against the occupation of Iraq (after having supported it early) was perhaps the highlight of his long career in Congress, which began when he won a special election in 1974. Murtha's stance eventually helped unify the House and Senate Democratic caucuses against the administration.

Murtha had a deserved reputation as a horse trader; he pushed vast sums of money into his district (which spans parts of Central Pennsylvania) from his position as chairman (and ranking member) of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He is likely to be succeeded as chairman by our own Representative Norm Dicks, who represents Washington State's 6th Congressional District.

The White House released the following statement in response to Murtha's death:

Michelle and I were deeply saddened today to hear about the passing of Congressman John Murtha. Jack was a devoted husband, a loving father and a steadfast advocate for the people of Pennsylvania for nearly 40 years. His passion for service was born during his decorated career in the United States Marine Corps, and he went on to earn the distinction of being the first Vietnam War combat veteran elected to Congress. Jack’s tough-as-nails reputation carried over to Congress, where he became a respected voice on issues of national security. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife of nearly 55 years, Joyce, their three children, and the entire Murtha family.

A special election will be held to determine Murtha's successor in Congress.

Republican State Senator Don Benton announces he'll run against Patty Murray

Didn't see this coming, but whatever:

Republican state Sen. Don Benton announced Saturday evening that he’s planning a run against Democrat U.S. Senator Patty Murray.

Benton made his announcement at the Clark County Republican Party’s Lincoln Day Dinner at the Hilton Vancouver Washington before hundreds of attendees. He said he’s been considering entering the race for weeks and made up his mind earlier this week.

“I’m running because we need a senator who will represent all the people of the state of Washington and not just the government,” Benton said.

We already have such a senator and her name is Patty Murray.

Considering Don Benton's lousy attendance record for floor votes and committee hearings in the State Senate, Murray has nothing to worry about from him. The first rule in politics is show up, and Benton, well... doesn't.

Benton, by the way, once ran against Brian Baird for U.S. Representative and lost. This year, has lent his name to be used as a cosponsor of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1053, as have fellow senators Janea Holmquist and Pam Roach. Roach and Homquist showed up at Eyman's press conference on January 11th to hype the initiative. Benton, of course, failed to make it to the Secretary of State's office.

Benton, who represents the 17th Legislative District (Vancouver area), also chaired the Washington State Republican Party at the turn of the millennium. He did such a good job that he was fired after only eight months on the job:

Benton's clashes with party leaders in his eight months opened the way for an unusually public race for party chairman. He has been criticized for not spending enough money on candidates in the fall campaigns, and for buying a building in Olympia and announcing the party would move there from Tukwila without getting approval of the party's executive board.

The board asked Benton, a state senator from Vancouver, to resign last month but he refused.

Diane Tebelius, GOP national committeewoman, said after the vote that the state party still has "substantial problems" with the Republican National Committee because of how Benton managed campaign money.

When Benton took over the party last year he angered some members by firing the staff and changing the locks on the party headquarters.

Benton apparently fancies himself to be the next Scott Brown... he says he's hired the same consulting team that worked with Brown to help him.

It remains to be seen whether his decision to run will complicate matters for Republicans trying to field a credible challenger to Murray.

Meet the hypocrites: Senator John McCain

With wife Cindy and daughter Meghan supporting marriage equality, holiday dinners with the family sure must be hard for Senator John McCain (being outnumbered by his "enemy" and all). Not only does McCain not support marriage equality, but he also continues to live in Fantasyland, believing that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is just peachy, despite saying he'd change his views if the nation's top military commanders asked him to.

So much for Captain McCain respecting the chain of command.

Here's Senator McCain on DADT in 2006:

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

And just this past week Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came to Senator McCain and the Senate Armed Services Committee and expressed the need to end the failed policy.

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator John McCain, despite hearing from the President's top military advisor, responded with the typical dogmatic and rigid conservative Republican stance:

This would be a substantial and controversial change to a policy that has been successful for two decades. It would also present yet another challenge to our military at a time of already tremendous stress and strain. Our men and women in uniform are fighting two wars, guarding the frontlines against a global terrorist enemy, serving and sacrificing on battlefields far from home, and working to rebuild and reform the force after more than eight years of conflict. At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

The reason for the Senator's hypocritical stance on this issue, which is completely out of line with the "maverick" Wizard-of-Oz-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain image that he has carefully cultivated, is that McCain is facing a primary challenge from conservative former Congressman and talk radio host J.D. Hayworth. In a state where Republicans have made an art form of demonizing people who are different, specifically the Hispanic and LGBT communities, McCain must feel that he can't afford to be out-teabagged by a teabagger. Surely if the Senate goes to work on immigration reform, McCain will alter his viewpoint on that issue to fit his political needs.

It just goes to show that biconceptuals like John McCain and Dave Reichert follow the political winds which ever way they may blow, in order to keep their seats. It's doesn't make for good public policy, but most always shows that they are hypocrites.

Vote yes for public schools this weekend

It's finally Saturday and a great time to dig your ballot out of the pile of mail on your counter, mark it and send it in.

Voters across Washington are being asked to approve school district levy and bond requests. Ballots are due Tuesday, February 9, making today a great time to get yours into the mail.

While passing levy and bond requests has always been important to school quality, this year fulfilling such requests is absolutely crucial. Because education is such a large part of the state's budget, school districts will take huge cuts in state funding this year, on top of last year's cuts, as the legislature covers a $2.6 billion budget deficit. Thursday's ruling in the Network for Excellence in Washington's Schools (NEWS) lawsuit against the state, charging that it is failing to adequately fund its public schools, highlights how the state has not been living up to its "paramount duty."

From the ruling of Superior Court Judge John Erlick:

State funding is not ample, it is not stable, and it is not dependable. Local school districts continue to rely on local levies and other non-State resources to supplement state funding for a basic program of education.

Local levies provide for such things as textbooks, teachers, art and athletics. In many school districts, they cover 19% of the district's expenses.

From the Wenatchee World:

If passage of school levies ever was a necessity, it is now.

Local school districts have been under increasing pressure for years, since it is a rule of thumb in Washington that financial demands on education grow faster than the Legislature’s willingness to fund them. Consequently, maintenance and operations levies that once funded additions now fund essentials. And so it is, more and more, year after year.

So, while you have a little free time this weekend, make a point to fill out your ballot and drop it in the mail. We must continue to push hard on the state to do its part in funding schools, but for now, our levies and bonds are filling the gap.

"Snowpocalypse" hits the Other Washington

Well, at least it's not us this time:

The full weight of winter brought life in much of the Washington region to a standstill Saturday as a storm predicted to be one of the most powerful on record dumped 12 to 21 inches of snow overnight.

Police reported two fatalities -- a father and son hit by a tractor-trailer in Virginia when they stopped to help a stranded motorist -- and with the snowfall expected to outpace plows' ability to clear it, officials pleaded with people to stay off the roads until conditions improve.

This is looking to be an epic storm... it's so bad the Postal service has canceled delivery and decided to shut down all of its D.C. area retail locations. Most flights out of Reagan, Dulles, and BWI have been canceled. Amtrak isn't running trains and Metro, the public transportation agency, has immobilized its entire fleet except for underground trains. Navigating throughout the area has become all but impossible.

The Post quoted Karyn LeBlanc from D.C.'s Department of Transportation as saying the snow is coming down so fast and so hard it can't be cleared.

"We are not in the residential streets now because we have to keep the major roads open. Once the snow stops, our main priority is to get back into the residential streets."

She said the focus now is on plowing. "We've stopped salting and treating."

"It's been coming so heavy that by the time you get down the [plow] route you have to return and do it over again."

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people are said to be without power across the Mid-Atlantic this morning.

Power may be out in some neighborhoods for days because crews cannot attempt to restore power in blizzard-like conditions.

The blizzard has not, however, stopped the Democratic National Committee meeting from taking place. The White House "SNOTUS" pool reported less than an hour ago that President Barack Obama's motorcade left the White House at 7:15 AM Pacific Time for the Capital Hilton, where the meeting is taking place, and arrived four minutes later. The motorcade managed to get there safely, with the only mishap being a fender bender between an ambulance and a press SUV.

The Washington Post has a pretty impressive storm gallery for those who want to see what the record snowfall looks like.

Colorado's I-1033, recession, and miserly electorate combining to kill Colorado Springs

This is the future that we gave ourselves a chance to avoid by saying NO to Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 last autumn:

COLORADO SPRINGS - This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

First responders, who needs 'em? Tea partiers in Colorado Springs have apparently managed to convince a majority of their neighbors that they don't need police, fire, or emergency medical response, let alone libraries, schools, and pools. Or hospitals. Or parks... Colorado Springs no longer has the money to maintain its urban oases:

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

Lovely. So much for beautification. But it gets worse:

City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

I wonder if there are any progressives left in Colorado Springs who can save the city. Conservatives certainly aren't going to. No doubt they still think, even now, that their own city government is bloated and wasteful, even though it's clearly drowning in a bathtub at this point.

Grover Norquist and all his clones (Tim Eyman, Bill Sizemore) should move to Colorado Springs and buy houses next to Douglas Bruce, 'cause they're living the tea party dream down there. Their common wealth is disappearing, and with it, their public services. It's a conservative utopia... I mean, dystopia.

We up here in Washington, meanwhile, have an opportunity to be generous towards each other and our children in this Tuesday's special election. Many school levies and bonds are on the ballot, and they need our "yes" vote. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to invest in our public schools. Rejecting right wing schemes like Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 are only half the equation.

The other half is actually stepping up to fund public services.

Some libraries are also requesting money so they can maintain service levels for patrons rather than going sod-all, as is the case in Colorado Springs.

So fill in the "Yes" ovals on that special election ballot, and be sure to mail it back in by this Tuesday, February 9th. Let's work together to keep our communities strong and avoid the fate of Colorado Springs.

POSTSCRIPT: Our favorite reaction to this post...

I currently live in Colorado. The situation is dire. I am a teacher who no longer has health benefits, has had their salary reduced by 10%, has 43 kids to teach, and will be taking furlough days. And I live in the "affluent" area. Timmy can come down here and live the vision of the American Enterprise Institute. It sucks.

I shudder to think what might have happened to us here in the Evergreen State had Initiative 1033 passed and gone into effect.

Democratic legislators begin courageous and noble effort to neutralize Tim Eyman's I-960

Earlier this week, Washington's Democratically-controlled Legislature finally began moving towards amending Tim Eyman's Initiative 960, which for the last two years has unconstitutionally outlawed majority rule from prevailing on fiscal decisions. Designed to allow the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate to wield veto power over the democratically elected Democratic majority, Initiative 960 has been on the books since it took effect early in December 2007.

Democrats have not had the ability to amend Initiative 960 until this legislative session because (ironically) the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from modifying initiatives after they have passed for two years. Now that that prohibition has expired, however, Democrats have the ability to neutralize this undemocratic initiative and restore majority rule to our statehouse.

"I-960 in practice is an impenetrable roadblock to thoughtful, reasoned governing," declared State Representative Ross Hunter, the prime sponsor of a bill to raise revenue and repeal outdated tax exemptions (HB 3176), which will move forward as soon as Tim Eyman's Initiative 960 has been amended.

"Not only does it keep us from making sensible fixes to our tax code, the 2/3 majority requirement leads to the worst kind of politicking and vote-trading, as witnessed in national efforts to pass health care reform, or in efforts to pass a budget in California where a 2/3 majority is required," Hunter added.

The Senate is taking the lead on amending Initiative 960, as agreed by Democratic legislative leaders. This afternoon the Senate Ways & Means Committee held a public hearing on SB 6843, which abolishes minority rule by amending I-960.

"I-960 is clearly unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court punted. They said the Legislature can fix it and that's what we're doing," Chair Margarita Prentice said.

Senator Prentice absolutely correct. We could have hardly said it better.

Tim Eyman, predictably, showed up to stomp his feet, wave his arms, call names, and throw a temper tantrum. And for good reason: his bluster is failing to deter Democratic legislators from thwarting his un-American, undemocratic assault on our cherished tradition of majority rule. Sadly, Eyman's temper tantrum is being echoed by people who should know better.

Like KOMO's Ken Schram, a quasi-libertarian who opposes Tim Eyman measures when they're on the ballot but then turns around and claims that amending them would be violating the will of the people:

Democrats in the House and Senate have the legal authority to scrub 960 but I maintain they have the moral obligation not to.

It doesn't mean a tinkers dam whether I didn't vote for 960 or if it makes their jobs harder.

It's what the people of this state voted for.

Wrong. It's what the people of this state voted for once upon a time. Since that election, the people have overwhelmingly voted down two Tim Eyman initiatives (I-985 in 2008, I-1033 in 2009), reelected Governor Chris Gregoire, and reelected the Legislature's Democratic majority in both houses to new terms in office.

Is Schram implying that the people spoke less clearly in those elections than in 2007, when Initiative 960 narrowly passed?

Let's not forget that 2007 was an off-year election with far lower turnout than either 2006 or 2008, when legislators stood for election.

Let's also not forget that in that same off-year election, besides narrowly voting to approve Initiative 960 (which took away majority rule) the people of the State of Washington also approved HJR 4204, which amended the State Constitution to allow school levies to pass by simple majority.

Initiative 960 might not have passed at all had voters understood that Initiative 960 would take away our cherished tradition of majority rule. The campaign against did not do a good job explaining the consequences.

But that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is this: The people of the State of Washington, voting in an election, have no authority to take away the rights of the majority in another election. It's un-American and it's undemocratic.

Yet this is precisely what happened with Initiative 960. A majority in an off-year election narrowly approved the initiative. The following year, a larger majority affirmed Democratic control of the Legislature.

The Legislature did not have the option of raising revenue to offset budget cuts in last year's legislative session because I-960 was in the way. And they couldn't remove I-960 because the Constitution prevented them from doing so. (Lisa Brown did go to court to try to have I-960 stricken, but the Supreme Court chickened out and refused to rule on I-960's constitutionality.)

Now Initiative 960, which itself violates the State Constitution, is no longer protected by that sacred document. Consequently, Democrats are acting courageously to neutralize the initiative so Republicans no longer have the power to veto the will of the majority. Our common wealth is in grave danger and Democrats are acting to protect it from being further damaged.

Just today, a King County Superior Court judge ruled that the state is failing to adequately provide for the education of young Washingtonians, as the State Constitution demands. That obligation is the state's "paramount duty", but for years the Legislature has passed the buck.

Now, at last, legislators are doing the responsible thing, and what thanks do they get? Nasty, derisive invective from the likes of Tim Eyman, perhaps the most irresponsible, greedy, self-centered, penny wise and pound foolish individual ever to live in the State of Washington, who, eight years ago to this day, tearfully admitted to pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own supporters' money for personal profit and then lying about it.

No one in this state is more unqualified to preach about fiscal responsibility than Tim Eyman. Eyman's backing singers - especially Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen and his editorial writers - should be heartily ashamed of themselves for not only supporting Initiative 960 in 2007, but for editorializing in favor of keeping its shackles in place this legislative session.

Their reasoning is unsound and their abetting of Tim Eyman is disgraceful.

We live in a democracy. For democracy to work, the decisions of the majority must prevail. Anything else is tantamount to oligarchy, or rule by the few. The only decisions that a minority should ever be able to block are decisions that would take away minority rights. This is why we have a Constitution that cannot be easily changed. Our State Constitution was written to protect both majority rule and minority rights. Majority rule is explicitly mentioned in Article II, Section 22 which says that bills shall pass by majority vote.

Why is that language there?

Because the people who wrote that document foresaw, wisely, that at some point, somebody (like Tim Eyman) might propose changing the rules because he or she didn't like the decisions the Legislature was making.

So they put in the word majority. And what did they mean by majority? Fifty percent plus one. A supermajority is a majority, but a supermajority requirement is a minority veto threshold. Not a majority.

If minority veto thresholds, such as the one contained in Initiative 960, are so wonderful, why don't Tim Eyman and The Seattle Times propose the same for any initiative that raises or lowers revenue? And, incidentally, why stop at two thirds? How about three fourths, or nine tenths? Think of that... nine tenths approval required for all of Tim Eyman's initiatives!

No Tim Eyman initiative has ever met such a threshold. In fact, no Tim Eyman initiative has ever met the threshold contained within Initiative 960. If we had a law that made it tougher to pass initiatives, all Tim Eyman initiatives would have failed at the ballot. Every last one. Even Initiative 695.

If anybody even seriously proposed such a law, Tim Eyman would scream like a banshee. That's how much of a hypocrite he is.

Unlike Tim Eyman, our Democratic legislators have sworn or affirmed an oath to uphold the Constitution of our state. They have a moral obligation to strike Initiative 960's shackles and a moral obligation to govern wisely and justly. With our state in the midst of a recession and public services in danger of going bankrupt, they likewise have a moral obligation to raise revenue so that our common wealth remains strong. Our welfare and our future depend on their courage.

Reducing congestion on our roads

Yesterday I was driving on a mercifully un-congested road, listening to KUOW's The Conversation, and caught a segment about the proposed 520 bridge replacement. Briefly, the proposal is for a six-lane bridge, with two regular and one HOV lane in either direction. The 520 bridge currently has no HOV lanes, which makes the HOV lanes on the eastern portion of 520 kind of useless because they do nothing to alleviate the choke-point that is the bridge.

The crux of the issue under discussion yesterday is that while this proposal has been in the works for some time, a "Citizens Group" that happens to include Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and House Speaker Frank Chopp is saying what the bridge really needs are dedicated mass transit lanes instead. Governor Gregoire dislikes this change because it would delay the bridge replacement by up to two years, which she says isn't in the interests of public safety.

What I was really struck by in listening to people calling in to the program, either yammering for or against the change, was the level of blithe misinformation about mass transit that seems to be informing a lot of people's thinking.

One caller in particular captured this ill-informed viewpoint perfectly. She was against the transit lane proposal because she didn't want to crowd the cars into the remaining two regular lanes. And I quote: "Mass transit lanes are not going to be the most efficient use of a travel lane." She then went on to say that she "has a strong desire for mass transit" in the long term, but that for now she just couldn't see not making the most efficient use of the lanes we have.

Which would make sense except for one thing: She's flat-out wrong in her assessment of lane efficiency. Mass transit actually is the most efficient use of a lane. Period.

One bus, because of its enormous capacity to hold people, moves more people per minute down each mile of freeway than an equivalent carrying capacity of cars does. True, there's not a bus going by every twenty seconds, but because that bus carries so many people, there doesn't need to be.

The bus is a win for everybody. It moves its passengers more efficiently than they could move themselves in cars, and by getting those passengers' cars off the road, it reduces congestion for the luddites who are still in their single-occupancy vehicles.

Light rail is even more efficient because trains don't share the same physical space as cars. A light rail lane would, for obvious safety reasons, probably have to be walled off from regular traffic lanes, which is a good thing all around. The train can zip across the bridge at full speed, carrying the equivalent of hundreds of cars worth of people, in less time than a single car can cross the bridge.

This is what people don't get. Mass transit really is more efficient than private car fleets. It's counter-intuitive, but it's true. We see the freeway filled with cars, and when things are moving well it seems like the cars are zipping right by and thus we have the perception that a lot of people must be getting where they're going pretty quickly.

But the rider-density of all those cars is so low, even with carpooling, that the car fleet just can't compete with mass transit. When traffic is flowing well, you might see twenty cars per minute pass by any given point. On the generous assumption that one quarter of those cars have a passenger, that's 25 people per minute per lane.

A dedicated mass transit lane carrying busses, even if only one bus per minute passed by your observation point, can easily carry 50 or more people. And with a bus fleet collecting riders from the entire Bellevue/Redmond/Kirkland area, it's not difficult to imagine meeting that one bus per minute metric. A dedicated mass transit lane can out-perform even two regular traffic lanes, without breaking a sweat.

This is what people fail to understand. Busses and light rail are much more efficient than cars. They always will be, unless you can find a way to fit fifty people into a Toyota.

The 520 bridge replacement needs dedicated mass transit lanes in order to serve the region's short term AND long term needs. It's the only way we're ever going to really reduce congestion, on 520 or anywhere else.

Seattle's scheme to eliminate HOV lanes from new SR 520 bridge is outrageous

Yesterday morning, a cadre of elected leaders representing Seattle - Mayor Mike McGinn, City Councilmembers Nick Licata and Mike O'Brien, Speaker Frank Chopp, Representative Jamie Pedersen, and Senator Ed Murray - held a well attended news conference surrounded by constituents in the Washington Park Arboretum to formally state their opposition to the state's preferred alternate for replacing the SR 520 bridge span, Option A+.

The group doesn't deny that we need a new bridge across Lake Washington. What it wants is a bridge footprint smaller than what the plans currently call for. The members of the group seem to have convinced themselves that if we throw the HOV lanes out of the bridge plans and replace them with "transit-only" lanes, the bridge's footprint will be smaller.

We disagree. We've seen no evidence that would back up such an assertion. Buses and trains require a lot of room to manuever. In fact, they require more room than cars do. We certainly won't save space on the bridge itself building isolated "transit-only" lanes that are physically seperated from what we'll call the solo lanes.

So what is the "benefit" of not having HOV lanes? Supposedly, it's smaller ramps (and that's all), but again, we've seen no evidence that demonstrates that replacing the HOV lanes with "transit-only" space would result in smaller ramps.

We understand and appreciate that westsiders want a compact Montlake interchange that doesn't cover the entire area betwen the Montlake and University District neighborhoods in concrete and asphalt.

At the same time, we Eastsiders (most of us at NPI live on the Eastside) are sick and tired of watching people who represent Seattle and run Seattle delay this project by throwing up roadblocks. Senator Rodney Tom put it well when he told the Seattle Times: "To me, every time they turn the corner they come up with a new wrinkle. We have an agreement; let's move forward."

In 2005, when we at NPI fought to save the gas tax increase from being repealed, we talked about the need to quickly replace vulnerable structures like the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Evergreen Point Floating Bridge before disaster struck.

Four and a half years later, we are still arguing over the design of both of those megaprojects, with most of the repeated cries of "Stop! Let's rethink everything... again!" coming from Seattle.

Let me say this as plainly and clearly as I can: The new SR 520 floating bridge must include high occupancy vehicle lanes.

Seattle should be grateful that the Eastside is currently represented by pragmatic Democrats instead of Republican road warriors (remember Jim Horn?) We on the Eastside are willing to support the construction of a replacement bridge that lacks new lanes for solo drivers. That's a pretty big concession considering that we still have plenty of pavement-hungry conservatives living over here.

However, our support for a replacement bridge with no new solo lanes hinges on the inclusion of high occupancy vehicle lanes.

Unlike Seattle, we have very few neighborhoods that could be described as walkable or pedestrian friendly. Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond are becoming much denser and easier to navigate on foot, but most Eastsiders live in subdivisons that are only readily accessible by car, and not well served by transit.

To atone for having chosen to live in such an auto-dependent place, many Eastsiders commute to work by carpooling and vanpooling, or taking advantage of shuttles provided by their employers (for example, Microsoft's Connector). When they get on the highway (which is where most of the congestion is), they promptly take advantage of HOV ramps and HOV lanes to bypass traffic. The value of HOV lanes is that they reward drivers who act sustainably.

We aggressively fought Tim Eyman's Initiative 985 in part because we wanted to be able to strengthen our HOV system in the future (and we obviously could not do that if it was destroyed). The Evergreen Point Floating Bridge has always been the biggest missing link in the HOV system. Not coincidentally, that's also where some of our region's worst traffic congestion is.

Today, vanpools and carpools coming from the east are forced to merge into the "general purpose" lanes before entering the bridgespan.

This is one of the major factors that creates the traffic phenomenon I call the Great Lake Washington Line (it's also been called the Kirkland Crawl) which is one of Puget Sound's worst traffic jams.

It can be seen pretty much every weekday morning and evening on WSDOT's traffic map: a black and red band typically stretching from the I-405 interchange to the water's edge. The state has added metered onramps to attempt to mitigate the congestion, but they haven't had much effect.

WSDOT, armed with a federal grant, is now in the process of adding variable speed limit signs over the stretch of SR 520 where the Line materializes, but this also won't have much more than a cosmetic effect.

The new bridge, on the other hand, holds more promise, because if it is built according to the current plans, buses, carpools, vanpools, and shuttles won't have to merge when they reach Evergreen Point. They'll be able to stay in HOV lanes. That would speed up travel for everyone trying to get across the lake.

But now Mayor Mike McGinn, Speaker Frank Chopp, and some of their some of their whiniest, noisiest constitutents want to take away the long planned right-of-way on the new bridge from people who rideshare.

Really... it's just unbelievable.

Chopp, especially, should know better. The Eastside is the linchpin of the majority he has built in the state House of Representatives. By obstructing the progress of one of the Eastside's most important priorities, he risks angering the very voters who (indirectly) made it possible for him to be Speaker.

And people on the Eastside are starting to get angry. I've seen the disgust reflected in the questions that my neighbors ask of our legislators at town halls. They want to know why the people who represent Seattle so often act like children.

I'm not kidding; that's the impression that people on this side of the lake have. And sadly, it doesn't seem to be wrong, either.

At this point, our patience is really starting to wear thin.

We will happily support having the state investigate ways to minimize the footprint of the rebuilt SR 520 as it passes through Seattle.

But we won't permit HOV lanes to be eliminated from the new bridge.

POSTSCRIPT: I forgot to mention that the current plans for the bridge do not preclude the state and Sound Transit from adding high capacity transit (or, in other words, light rail) to the bridge in the future. Years from now, when we actually have the money, we can add a light rail spur that goes across State Route 520.

In the meantime, we'll have the HOV lanes, which are essentially enhanced transit lanes that carpools and vanpools can make use of. For a good explanation of why new general purpose lanes are not part of the designs for the new SR 520 bridge, see Jason's post about capacity efficiency.

Obama must tell a better story

It’s a Democratic conundrum that we see playing out over and over again: Why do Americans vote and speak (often angrily) against their self-interest? Why did the truck driver vote for a guy who lowered taxes on the rich? Why is the waitress so furious because Democrats in Congress are trying to ensure that she and her kids can afford health insurance?

As President Obama enters his second year in office, pundits are prescribing many ways for him to improve: be more like Ross Perot, be more forceful, be more progressive.

Writing for Common Dreams.org, political scientist Dr. David Runciman has a suggestion that resonates with both the fact-loving side of my brain and the emotional side. He suggests that Obama isn’t telling enough good stories.

My left brain is aware that breakthroughs in brain science have found that for logical thinking (the kind that Democrats seem to favor) to be effective it must go hand in hand with emotional thinking, that is, with stories. My right brain says, yes, it knew this all along.

Runciman describes the work of psychologist Drew Westen, the author of The Political Brain:

For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious."

The story that conservatives are good at telling is one of "elite Democrats" who talk down to Americans and tell us what’s best for us. This image strikes a nerve with lower and middle income people who feel like our economy and politics have left them behind. This story certainly worked for George W. Bush.

Runciman writes:

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them. They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.

On top of better storytelling, in order to get more support for his policies, President Obama must work harder to understand his opposition. According to the author of Management Rewired, a study of brain science and business management, using empathy is key to getting cooperation from others.

Since conservatives and independents want the government to “keep their hands off their Medicare,” it will take empathy, not logic, for Obama and Democrats in Congress to understand where this anger is coming from and how to get these groups' support. Understanding what motivates voters will help lawmakers find the right story to sell their policies.

Runciman describes how the right-wing has used empathy to pervert U.S. politics:

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channeling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Democrats should tone down the facts and figures and integrate them with stories that resonate with Americans' experiences. The human brain is programed to use stories to understand the world, and Democrats should tap into that natural inclination. It's not what we're saying, it's how we're saying it.

WA-03: First Democratic candidate forum takes place in Lewis County

Full Disclosure: I am a supporter and volunteer for Senator Craig Pridemore's campaign to succeed Brian Baird as U.S. Representative in the 3rd District. My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Pridemore for Congress.

Last Thursday night at Centralia College, the Lewis County Democrats played host to the first candidate forum for the Democratic party candidates in the 3rd Congressional District. This was the first opportunity for candidates to introduce themselves to the party faithful and explain why they are running for the seat being vacated by Brian Baird.

According to the e-mail, from Chair Bob Schroeter, that went out advertising the forum, each candidate was given five minutes to state their reasons for running for election, followed by each candidate being given one minute each to respond to a minimum of three standardized questions.
A list of twelve possible questions (from which the three would be selected) was provided ahead of time to each of the candidates.

One question asked of candidates was regarding their thoughts on the annual budget deficits that the federal government has been running since the beginning of the Bush presidency. The responses ranged from the sensible (Craig Pridemore) to the off-the-wall, scratch your head (Maria Rodriguez-Salazar). Here's Pridemore:

"There’s only one time the federal government should ever deficit spend and that’s a time when the economy is sluggish and we need something to get things moving again, and that’s a time like now. As soon as those times are over we have to get back to a time when the budget is balanced."

And here Rodriguez-Salazar's response to the same question:

“I’ve moved on from the Bush Administration. Don’t want to talk about it, don’t want to go back and want to go forward.”

Huh? I think all of the candidates would agree with that statement, but it doesn't explain Ms. Rodriguez-Salazar's thoughts on budget deficits, nor does it inspire confidence in her ability to do the job.

Another question inquired about why each of the candidates believed they were more electable than the others, especially since a strong Republican campaign and expensive race for the seat is expected.

While all of the candidates highlighted their strengths, it was Senator Pridemore who skillfully explained how to win a swing district in a tough campaign.

“Barack Obama won the 3rd Congressional District this past presidential election. He didn’t do it by turning away from the Democratic Party's values, or apologizing for them or pandering to corporations. He did it by appealing to our values and things we believe in. He did it by engaging young people and getting them out to work tirelessly during the campaign, and that is literally what is going to be required from us to hold this seat. We need to inspire those same people who turned out for Barack Obama in this upcoming election and if we don’t we’re not going to hold this seat, it’s not possible.”

Though this was just the first candidate forum of this campaign, NPI plans to bring you live coverage from future events with the candidates.

Senate Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee advances 2010 Homebuilding Revitalization Act

Earlier this evening, the Senate Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee (chaired by Senator Jeanine Kohl Welles, D-36th District) reported SSB 6701 out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation, subject to signature.

SSB 6701, prime sponsored by Senator Adam Kline, is the 2010 version of the Homebuilding Revitalization Act, previously known as the homeowner's bill of rights. The bill has seven Democratic cosponsors. Voting to refer the bill to Rules were Democratic Senators Kohl-Welles, Kline, Keiser, and Franklin. Voting no were Republican Senators Honeyford, Holmquist, and King.

SSB 6701, in a nutshell, would extend the same protections that condo owners currently enjoy to homeowners, who have no right of recourse if something goes wrong with their home. NPI has been fighting to correct this injustice for many years, and as Sandy Levy said on Tuesday when he testified before the committee, we're still at it. And we will be until we have succeeded.

If history is any indication, SSB 6701 will be placed on the fast track through Senate Rules (as its predecessors were in years past) and be added to the floor calendar for consideration in short order. SSB 6701 must then pass out of the Senate by February 16th, 2010 at 5 PM to remain alive.

Senate votes to reconfirm Ben Bernanke; NW senators evenly divided for and against

The United States Senate has just voted seventy to thirty to reconfirm Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The vote, which came after a successful motion to cut off debate, featured an unusual alliance of progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans sick of the lack of accountability at the Fed.

The Pacific Northwest's ten United States Senators were evenly split (although not along partisan lines), with an equal number of ayes and nays.

VOTING AYE: Baucus, Tester, Murray, Wyden, Murkowski
VOTING NAY: Cantwell, Merkley, Crapo, Risch, Begich

In California, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer also parted ways, with Feinstein happily supporting Bernanke and Boxer casting the informed and responsible no vote. (Boxer did, however, support ending debate on Bernanke's nomination).

Senator Cantwell is currently speaking to her vote on the floor of the Senate, saying she has heard loud and clear from her constituents - especially small business owners - that they feel abandoned by the federal government.

"How is it that we can act immediately to save the AIGs but we can't act immediately to save companies like Vancouver Iron and Steel?" Cantwell asked.

"The Fed Chairman has to realize the urgency with which the big banks have been saved... That urgency has to apply to Main Street," she declared. "I urge the Fed now... and the Treasury... to make this their number one priority."

That's our Senator... Maria Cantwell! She proudly works for us, not Wall Street. And we're incredibly proud of her for the heroic, tireless work she does to improve economic security for families across Washington and America.

Washington State to receive more than half a billion in federal dollars for high-speed rail

Hurrah! This is great news for our region:

Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, announced that $590 million in federal funding will go to Washington state for high speed rail upgrades in the Pacific Northwest Cascades corridor.

The funding is part of a major high speed rail initiative that Senator Murray helped include in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Since the Pacific Northwest was named one of the 10 potential regions to receive funds for high speed rail in April 2009, Senator Murray has worked with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to build support for states like Washington where the groundwork for high speed rail lines has been underway through previous state and federal investments and where improvements would help provide an alternative to congested roadways and spur economic activity.

Secretary LaHood called Senator Murray yesterday to inform her that Washington would be among the state’s receiving high speed rail funding.

We're thrilled by this news, and we share Senator Murray's excitement for improving rail service throughout Western Washington and Western Oregon. Doing so will make Amtrak Cascades (and the Coast Starlight, which goes all the way down the Left Coast to Los Angeles) more attractive to commuters and travelers journeying between many of the Pacific Northwest's major cities.

It's about time that we started putting serious money into high-speed rail, instead of wasting it on highway widening, which only encourages more people to drive and does not provide an alternative to traffic.

WA-03: Gregoire endorses Heck, Labor Council releases voting records

Full Disclosure: I am a supporter and volunteer for Senator Craig Pridemore's campaign to succeed Brian Baird as U.S. Representative in the 3rd District. My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Pridemore for Congress.

Governor Gregoire weighed in on the 3rd Congressional District today, endorsing Denny Heck, along with Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, former Congressman Don Bonker of the 3rd District and former Governor Booth Gardner.

Though lauding the other Democratic candidates as "fine public servants", for some reason (perhaps a longstanding relationship from her days in the Gardner Administration serving with Denny Heck) Governor Gregoire was compelled to interject herself into a Democratic primary. It's disappointing to say the least that the Governor didn't wait to endorse until after the primary.

It will be interesting to see if Governor Gregoire's endorsement is helpful or a hindrance to the Heck campaign in Lewis County, Cowlitz County and parts of Clark County, where the governor is less popular in more rural areas.

In addition, today the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO released the voting records of the three leading Democrats and leading Republican on issues that matter most to working families. Among the Democrats, Senator Craig Pridemore came in first with a 98% voting record, with State Representative Deb Wallace trailing at 82% and Denny Heck a distant third at 72%.

Of course, Republican Jaime Herrera scored a 24% voting record.

It should be noted that according to the WSLC report, Senator Pridemore has only voted on the wrong side of working families (as perceived by the organization) once.

As it turns out though, the governor did more today than just endorse Heck. She also sent out a questionable fundraising letter (WAC 390-17-400 governs the fundraising activities of state officials) asking people to financially support the Heck campaign. An earlier e-mail version of the appeal which has since been sent to NPI, embarrassingly asks for financial support for "Danny Heck".

We at NPI hope the governor will avoid these kinds of distractions and return her focus to the important work of the legislative session.

State of the Union 2010: President Obama delivers another eloquent call to action... but will there be any action?

Minutes ago, President Obama finished delivering a beautifully crafted, endurance-themed State of the Union Address that called on Congress (but perhaps more specifically, the Senate) to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to responsibly govern our United States of America.

The speech was very unlike either of the past two addresses the President made to Congress (January and September 2009). It touched on several major policy directions, from healthcare to economic security to national defense.

Notably, Obama asked Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, provide thirty billion dollars of repaid TARP money to help community banks make loans, and a vaguely-defined National Export Initiative to help farmers and small businesses reach untapped markets around the globe.

Like past State of the Union addresses, this one was heavy on platitudes and light on concrete details, but it was nevertheless uplifting.

One of the more subtle aspects of the speech that stood out for me was that the President deliberately made the effort to single out and praise the House of Representatives for acting on his administration's priorities.

He did this not one, not two, not three, but four times:

• "The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay."
• "The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back. "
• "I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families."
• "And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. "

Not surprisingly, he got spirited cheers from the House Democratic caucus at each of the moments where he spoke the words excerpted above. The White House cleverly took advantage of the speech as an opportunity to create a juxtaposition between the House (which has been moving legislation to better the country) and the Senate (which has failed to accomplish much of anything during the past year) without explicitly condemning the Senate for seemingly endless dithering.

Although Republicans allowed their lack of enthusiasm for the President's agenda to clearly show during the first half of the speech, their resolve to stay seated eventually withered, and many of them were joining in on the applause lines by the end. There were no shouts of "You lie!", although there was grumbling and mumbling when the President talked about needing to solve the climate crisis.

The speech ended up being more sobering than soaring. It managed to be both optimistic and realistic about the challenges that confront our country. It was, to be sure, an eloquent call to action. The question is, will it lead to any action?

President Obama has spoken eloquently before, to disappointing results. If 2009 taught us anything, it is that great speeches do not equal great legislative achievements... or even substantial progress. The White House is simply going to have to provide some parental supervision in the Senate if it wants to get Congress' dysfunctional half to confront our nation's challenges.

Climate change in the Northwest: Monster waves edition

What to write about today? The much-anticipated iPad launch? The ever-shifting fates of the health care bill? Yesterday's election in Oregon, which shows that with the right message people will support paying for effective governance by raising state revenues? Or maybe the fact that Washington State Treasurer Jim McIntire is worried that the state could literally run out of cash before October?

No. How about monster waves, like this one from Oregon State University's Flickr stream:



Note the high point of the wave coming up about even with the top floor of that condo building.

Recently, Oregon State University released an analysis of wave data from deep-water buoys floating in the waters off the Pacific Coast of Washington and Oregon. Specifically, they wanted to know whether the buoy data supported previously accepted estimates of maximum wave heights. In a word, no:

The new assessment concludes that the highest waves may be as much as 46 feet, up from estimates of only 33 feet that were made as recently as 1996, and a 40 percent increase. December and January are the months such waves are most likely to occur, although summer waves are also significantly higher.

To be clear, these are storm-driven waves. Waves that originate from the action of wind upon the ocean's surface. These are not tsunami waves, which are a whole other phenomenon. And this study is only concerned with the outer coast. Waves within the Puget Sound are driven almost entirely by local wind phenomena within the Sound.

The study also reports that the height of a "100-year event" wave could exceed 55 feet. Surf's up!

But 100-year events, which are common in the insurance industry as a measure of the worst thing you'd expect to happen every century or so, are kind of hard to wrap your head around. Between wind storms, heavy rains, and the occasional blizzard we in the Puget Sound are much more familiar with what to expect on a scale of about 5 years (about as often as those kinds of events happen). I asked OSU geoscientist Peter Rugerrio what the 5-year expected wave height would be:

A value of about 45 feet would approximate the 5-year event for the outer coast. [...] There is a lot of variability, but with the same assumptions used [in the study] a 45 foot 5-year event would be reasonable.

Note, even that is considerably higher than the previous 33 foot estimate. Why should we care? From the OSU news release:

Increasing wave heights [...] have had double or triple the impact in terms of erosion, flooding and damage as sea level rise over the last few decades.

In other words, bigger waves mean a double-whammy of damage along with that from now-inevitable sea level rise. When high offshore waves reach land, they dissipate incredible quantities of energy as they break. Of particular concern is "swash," the water that a breaking wave forces onto dry land. Like this:



That image, also courtesy of OSU, is from a storm in 2008. Imagine if that swash had one of those 45- or 55-foot offshore waves backing it up.

These large waves are primarily driven by weather patterns, such as El Nino events, which are expected to ramp up as the Earth's climate warms. We'll get El Nino events more often and more severely than before, which means more waves, more coastal erosion, more damage to sensitive coastal ecosystems, and more damage to human property as well.

The point of all this is not to be a doomsayer or get everybody down. We just need to recognize that climate change is real. It is now. And it is here.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Oregon voters approve new revenue with apparent passage of Measures 66 and 67

Voters in Oregon (a state with an even higher unemployment rate than Washington) tonight rejected the personal greed and cynicism promoted by tea partiers by overwhelmingly approving two ballot measures to raise revenue.

As of about 9 PM, Measure 66 – an increase on taxes to households with incomes at and above $250,000 (and individual filers with income over $125,000) – was passing with 54.17 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, Measure 67 - which raises Oregon’s corporate minimum tax, business minimum tax, and corporate profits tax – was passing with 53.71 percent of the vote.

Support for the measures was strongest in urban counties like Multnomah (home to much of Portland's population) and Lane (home to Eugene) as well as coastal counties like Tillamook, Lincoln, and Clatsop.

Together the two measures generate an estimated $727 million, which has already been budgeted by the 2009 Legislature in support of education, health care, public safety, and other services.

Tonight's results from Oregon are nothing less than excellent news for progressives, and a welcome relief from last week's slew of bad news.

The twin victories show that voters are willing to raise revenue – even in the midst of a recession – to pay for badly needed public services. Unfortunately, those of us who live north of the Columbia River are unlikely to be given the opportunity to say yes to the kind of revenue proposals that were put in front of the people of Oregon.

Oregon has a progressive state income tax – something that’s sorely needed in Washington but which we aren’t likely to have anytime soon – and at least part of what drove the vote in Oregon is the idea of asking those who have made the most money to pay back their fair share in taxes.

Measure 66 adjusted the tax rates to only the top income earners, and conservatives will be quick to spin this as a vote to “soak the rich.”

Measure 67 addressed corporate taxes, and a similar approach in Washington would be opposed with the same argument that was used in Oregon: that draining money from business and industry would damage the state's economy.

But our neighbors to the south have wisely rejected that argument. Given the chance to protect their quality of life and strengthen their common wealth, they took it. Democratic legislators in Washington State should take the outcome of today's special election to heart in the days ahead as they work on offsetting proposed budget cuts with new revenue.

Homebuilding Revitalization Act would protect innocent owners and honest builders

Editor's Note: Sandy Levy is a Seattle-based attorney the firm Levy von Beck & Associates who has worked heroically with us for the past few years to pass a Homebuilding Revitalization Act that would protect innocent homeowners and honest builders from the horrific damage caused by negligent, shady contractors. The following is a polished transcript of the remarks he delivered today before the Senate Labor, Commerce, & Consumer Protection Committtee on SB 6701, the 2010 version of the Homebuilding Revitalization Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to address Senator King, who told a story... There are two things that could have happened that would have been different, and would have protected both the architect and the builder. If an architect is asked to design something that the architect thinks is fatally flawed, all the architect needs to do is write a letter that says, I accept no responsibility for this fatal and flawed design.

The contractor, under law, can also require the owner to accept sole and complete responsibility for a flawed design. That's one letter, one paragraph, eliminates all liability. That's one way that they can deal with it.

But let's say that nevertheless, the owner wants to insist on this and causes litigation. Under existing law, the aggrieved contractor, or the aggrieved architect, has no right to recover attorneys' fees. Under this bill - Section 9 - in a judicial proceeding under this section, it says the court the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party.

So, where you have an irresponsible owner who tries to take advantage of a contractor, now suddenly, there's actually a remedy.

And the attorneys' fees situation is a substantial remedy and a deterrent to irresponsible action by a homeowner.

As most of the senators here understand, we've been at this for years. Senator Honeyford asked me several years ago, Shouldn't the focus of attention be on the inspectors? And you know, you wrote in a provision - or the committee did - several years ago, and the municipal inspectors came in and said they just won't inspect anymore. They don't want liability.

Now, there's only one potential innocent party in a construction contract situation. That's the owner, who doesn't have the professional expertise (and, if he buys a completed house, has no ability to inspect what's behind the walls). He's not allowed to open walls, he's not allowed to do any inspection that does any damage. That buyer buys a house innocently and has no means of affording himself protection. This bill simply equalizes that playing field.

And to me, it's very interesting today. I feel like the homeowners are like the franchise auto dealers dealing with General Motors and the other manufacturers. We're caught as homeowners - the engine drivers of the economy - buying the products, but we don't have any rights. We have no right to enforce the building codes in the State of Washington.

So the State of Washington might require that a house be safe, secure, not leak... but if it doesn't, and it was approved by the building inspectors, the homeowners have no right of recourse. On the other hand, the builders have a hundred percent recourse. Why? Because by contract, right now, they require all their subcontractors to indemnify them. One hundred percent. By contract.

By contrast, current builders - when they contract to sell a home to a Washington buyer - typically, they require the homeowner to waive all implied warranties under the law. And by contract they can require them to agree to a thirty day statute of limitations if they want, and they can force them to agree to standards of poor quality built into the contract, so that the only thing that constitutes a defect is something that causes the house to fall down, and then the warranty period is very limited. The builder, on the other hand, can require his contractors to indemnify him and pay him attorneys' fees.

Also, the builders can require by contract, that all the subs and all of their key employees go through a training program. Homeowners have no such rights.

Even if, as the builders say, this has some impact on the construction industry, why should the homeowners who innocently buy homes be the ones to have to support the construction industry remodel program?

[That's] what the homeowners have to do, when they have to pay out of their own pocket to fix the houses they bought, which should have been built in accordance with the building codes and in a workmanlike way in the first place.

Thank you.

Community leaders support early education

Last week I traveled to Olympia to attend a public hearing for a bill I support. If you haven’t been to the legislature during the legislative session, I recommend that you make a trip before the session ends on March 11. The “other side” is there and on display (just last week there was a massive pro-life rally and an Evergreen Freedom Foundation rally on the Capitol steps) and we want to show lawmakers that we have just as much passion and conviction as they do, not to mention better ideas.

The hearing I attended focused on early education, which these days includes education from a child’s very earliest days to age five because researchers have found that giving children a rich environment when they are very young is crucial to their success in school and in life. My legislator, Representative Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland), sponsored the bill that most attendees were speaking up for, HB 2731, or the Ready for School Act. This bill proposes making early education a part of basic education and therefore constitutionally protected from budget cuts. We can absolutely see this year that programs that aren’t protected by either a constitutional or federal mandate are vulnerable in times of revenue declines. Goodman’s bill also directs the state Department of Early Learning to create “community-based services and programs for children ages birth to three years and their parents and caregivers.”

The hearing room was already fairly crowded with members of child advocacy groups and other activists, but heads turned when a pair of burly Mason County sheriffs walked into the room. Their testimony was one of the reasons that I was glad to have made the trek down to Olympia. It’s great to have the opportunity to hear from people who can see the direct effects of legislation.

The first sheriff described to the House Early Learning Committee members the cycle of events that he has seen play out over and over in his decades in public safety. The sheriff regularly goes into “troubled homes” where small children live. Years later, he sees these same kids getting into trouble themselves on the streets. A little later, he sees many of these kids end up in jail. The law enforcer took the time to testify that day because he wants to see this cycle broken. He wants those small children to have a better future, and he believes that early education and training for young children's parents will help them get it.

The second sheriff testified about a successful program for teenage moms that he has seen that is similar to those proposed in the Ready for School Act. When this program for teens was eliminated due to budget cuts, he saw the negative effects: the teens “moved away” from school and the positive lessons that they were learning about parenting. They were left to become another sad teen mother statistic.

A bit later, a businesswoman testified, in part to rebut the anti-tax rhetoric that floats around her business community. She told the room that her typical response to conservative tax critics is that it is important where our tax money goes. Money spent on preparing the future workforce, that is, early childhood education, is invaluable.

The most imaginative testimony came from a woman who sits on the board of many non-profit organizations. She allowed us to see for ourselves what school is like for kids from a “troubled home:”

Imagine if you were at your first day of kindergarten. You can’t sit still during circle time. You take toys away from other kids. You can’t wait to play with the dollhouse or blocks and get in trouble with the teacher for jumping up and leaving the group. The teacher knows by the end of the day that you won’t graduate from high school...Imagine knowing at age five that you are already expected to fail.

The Ready for School Act easily passed out of the House Early Learning Committee will be discussed in the House Ways and Means Committee tomorrow. This committee will consider the financial effects of the bill and if they’ve got good data available, they’ll see that early learning more than pays for itself. Protecting it in the state budget as a part of basic education will ensure that during future bad times Washington will continue to help families give their kids a strong start, which is good for our society.

The work of Nobel Prize-winning University of Chicago economics professor James Heckman makes the decision clear:

Professor Heckman studied decades worth of data from early childhood development programs that break the cycle of disadvantage by giving disadvantaged children and their families resources for the early nurturing, learning experiences and physical health that lead to future success. Professor Heckman’s value analysis of these programs reveals that investing in early childhood development for disadvantaged children provides a high return on investment to society through increased personal achievement and social productivity.

Early education is the most basic type of education and should be included in the state's definition of the basic education that it provides.

It pays to work for Rob McKenna

State Attorney General Rob McKenna, the likely Republican standard-bearer for governor in 2012, approved nearly $600,000 in bonus payments last year to members of his staff while other state workers were facing pay cuts, furloughs and layoffs, the Northwest Progressive Institute has learned.

In recent days, NPI staff reviewed documents that revealed:

• Total bonus payments within the Attorney General's office exceeded those of any other state agency. Of the $1.9 million awarded as bonuses to state employees during FY 2009, nearly one-third - $599,000 - went to members of the McKenna's staff (McKenna has been Attorney General since 2005).
• The AG's office awarded larger than average bonuses. While the average performance award for a state employee was $204, members of the AG's office were awarded bonuses averaging $664 with 55 staffers getting bonuses of $3,000 each.
• Bonuses were widespread. The AG's office awarded a total of 901 bonuses to its staff of 1321 staffers, including 55 awards of $3,000 each.
• Most awards were given during the economic downturn. In fall 2008, Governor Gregoire advised agencies to withhold performance recognition awards, and most agencies complied. However, the AG awarded the vast majority of his awards in February 2009, just as the Legislature was making draconian spending cuts to education and public health programs in an effort to balance the state budget.

The figures come from the Department of Personnel's Washington State Government Performance Incentives and Bonuses.

The document sheds some valuable light on the misplaced fiscal priorities of Washington’s most prominent statewide elected Republican.

The AG's office gave out more tax dollars in the form of bonuses in FY 2009 than any other state agency. Although the Washington State Department of Transportation came close, their payments were spread out among 6,399 awards, while Rob McKenna approved $599,000 in bonuses to just 901 employees.


The report was submitted by the Department of Personnel in fulfillment of the annual reporting requirements of ESHB 2049, and outlines the 9,323 bonuses awarded by 24 state agencies.

Rep. Larry Seaquist (D–26th District) is sponsoring House Bill 2998, which is aimed at suspending monetary awards and salary increases through June 30th, 2011.

The bill is scheduled for public testimony at today’s hearing of the House Committee on Ways & Means, and for executive action tomorrow at 3:30 PM.

UPDATE, 3:30 PM (Andrew): Rob McKenna's office has responded to our story, and tells NPI the decision to award bonuses a year ago - for work done between 2007 and 2008 - was not made lightly. Additionally, performance pay has been indefinitely suspended, at least until the economy recovers.

"The performance management program, including performance pay when budget allows, is a fiscally responsible and highly accountable form of recognition, allowing our agency to reward high performers – from office assistants to assistant attorneys general (AAGs) - on a yearly basis with no carry-forward budget implications," said Janelle Guthrie, McKenna's Communications Director.

"Tying compensation to strong performance serves the public interest by holding employees accountable for their performance year after year," she added.

It's a fair argument, but unfortunately it doesn't jibe with McKenna's public position on the state budget. Here's an excerpt from a guest editorial he coauthored with Sam Reed and Republican legislative leaders a few weeks ago:

The state must also look at how its employees are compensated. As the Dec. 14 Seattle Times editorial "Gov. Gregoire's state budget has merit" noted, the state can no longer afford to allow its employees to pay only 12 percent of their health-care premiums while most private-sector workers pay more than 20 percent. Remedying this inequity saves more than $100 million this biennium.

Taxpayers should also be spared from funding $83 million in planned pay raises for 21,000 state workers. Most state employees would contribute more to their health insurance benefit or forgo raises if it meant a chance to save their jobs.

These paragraphs beg the question: Why weren't taxpayers spared from having to fund nearly $600,000 in bonuses to Rob McKenna's staff last year? It's all well and good that there won't be any bonuses this year. But everyone knew state revenue had fallen off a cliff well before February 2009, when bonuses were distributed.

Guthrie argues the AG has been careful with its budget and came to the decision that the bonuses were appropriate. "As of December 2008, agency spending was nearly $20 million under budget... representing a roughly 10 percent savings," she told NPI. "The bulk of those savings were passed on to our clients in the form of reduced legal rates but as you point out, roughly $600,000 was used to pay compensation we felt legally obligated to provide to deserving staff."

We can appreciate the argument that state employees are valuable, should be fairly compensated for their work, and rewarded when they go above and beyond the call of duty. We also appreciate that keeping work in house can save money.

The problem is that Rob McKenna and his fellow Republicans are trying to have it both ways. They are not practicing what they preach.

We've lost track of how many times we have heard Republicans both inside and outside of state government claim that state employees are too well paid and that government is wasteful. And yet, here we have a situation where state employees working for a Republican were given bonuses well after it had become painfully clear that we were facing an unprecedented budget crisis.

Is this "living within our means"? We don't think so.

We often hear the right wing say everything would be so much better if government was just run like a business. Perhaps they should be more specific and say that they mean that it should be run like a Wall Street investment bank.

NPI advises Legislature to reform initiative process to safeguard direct democracy

Editor's Note: Yesterday the Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee held a hearing on SB 6449, prime sponsored by Senator Joe McDermott, which would require paid petitioners to register with the Public Disclosure Commission and allow the Secretary of State to disqualify initiative petitions that a signature gatherer has not certified as having been properly circulated. The following is a polished version of my notes on that bill, which served as the basis for my comments.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee:

Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Andrew Villeneuve. I am the executive director of the Northwest Progressive Institute, a Redmond-based strategy center working to advance the common good through ideas and action.

I want to begin my remarks by thanking Senator McDermott for sponsoring this bill and initiating a discussion about protecting the spirit and integrity of the initiative processes. I'd like to offer some brief thoughts on the bill and suggest some improvements that could be incorporated as amendments.

First, we would urge the Committee to amend this bill to change the penalties so that signatures are not invalidated due to misconduct by petitioners. We believe that appropriate penalties are fines and revocation of the business license of a signature gathering firm that employs repeat offenders.

Second, we would urge the Committee to take a look at Win v. Warheit, the 1993 decision that found that a Washington statute requiring petitioners to publicly disclose themselves as signature gatherers to be unconstitutional.

The Committee should consider exempting a registry of signature gatherers (if such a registry is created) from the public disclosure law to avoid running afoul of the 9th Circuit's decision in that case.

Finally, I would like to observe that when the initiative process was first conceived, there was no such thing as a signature gathering industry.

Signature gathering has become a big business and signatures have become a commodity. The State of Washington has a public interest in regulating the initiative and referendum process to ensure that it is fair.

Thank you and I'm happy to answer questions you may have.

I also testified on SB 6665, sponsored by Senator Jeanine Kohl-Welles, which would raise the initiative filing fee from $5 to $250. The following is a polished version of my notes on that bill, which served as the basis for my comments.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee:

Once again, good afternoon. I'd like to briefly speak to Senate Bill 6665, which would raise the filing fee in Washington State to $250.

Since the initiatrive process was first created ninety nine years ago, the fee to file an initiative in Washington State has remained at five dollars. The cost of a marriage license, the cost to incorporate, and the cost of providing countless other legal documents to the state, meanwhile, have gone up.

Our state currently faces a huge budget crisis. At a time when we lack the revenue to pay our expenses, it is unfathomable that we have let the initiative filing fee languish at five dollars. Every little bit counts.

What's more, we frequently hear the argument that people who use a public service offered by the state should pay their way. For example, citizens are not entitled to free or discounted copies of materials from the State Archives.

They have to pay a reasonable fee.

In the case of the initiative process, five dollars is not reasonable. Five dollars does not cover the state's costs. Five dollars is so low that an individual who wishes can repeatedly file near identical drafts of their proposal in the hope that the Attorney General's office will create slightly different ballot titles for each. Then, the sponsor can re-file the draft with the language that he or she will result in the best ballot title. This is known as ballot title shopping.

We've looked at filing fees in other states and found none so low as Washington's. Alaska's, for example, is $100. Wyoming charges $500 and so do Florida and Mississipi. California charges $200. States with no filing fee, we've found, require a minimum number of citizen cosponsors, public hearings, or other prerequisites before a signature drive can begin.

In summary, in these challenging times for our state, we believe it makes fiscal sense to raise the filing fee to cover the real costs of filing an initiative.

Thank you.

Senate Republicans oppose spending cuts

Two bills that trim a total of $69 million from the state payroll were approved by the Senate today without a single Republican vote between them.

Senate Bill 6382 will extend the salary freeze for many state employees that was approved last year and prevent agencies from handing out bonuses. It passed on a party-line vote of 29-14.

Senate Bill 6503 give agencies until May 15 to develop plans to cut $69 million from their budgets. Agencies that fail to submit plans would be required to effectively shut down one day a month for 13 months to save payroll costs. It passed on a vote of 27-17, with Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-35th District) and Sen. Karen Fraser (D-22nd District) voting with the Republicans.

These are painful cuts. In spite of what most conservatives will tell you, state employees are real people, and freezing their pay or actually cutting it through furloughs means real people suffer. They have less money to spend, and that doesn't help our consumer based economy.

Democrats put these cuts on the table - as painful as they are - because there are no pain-free cuts left to make to a state budget that has already been cut to the bone. But where are the Republicans?

It is obvious by their actions that conservatives in Olympia are not interested in governing. They claim our state spends too much and doesn't need additional revenue while refusing to put forward an all-cuts budget of their own.

And now they even refuse to bite the bullet and vote for bills that cut millions of dollars from what they claim is a bloated budget!