Troubled Spokane parking garage project could come back to haunt Michael Ormsby

Last Saturday, the Spokesman-Review, Spokane's daily newspaper of record, reported that Washington's U.S. Senators have recommended Michael Ormsby, the brother of State Representative Timm Ormsby (D-3rd District), for the position of U.S. Attorney for Eastern Washington:

The office of U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., confirmed Friday that Ormsby’s name had been formally forwarded to the White House, where President Barack Obama would make the appointment.

After review by the Office of White House Counsel, Ormsby would undergo an FBI background investigation and the nomination would be subject to confirmation by the Senate.

If confirmed, he would be the chief federal law enforcement officer for Eastern Washington – one of 90 such U.S. attorney positions that the president will fill.

Ormsby's recommendation has drawn fire from watchdogs critical of his involvement in the River Park Square controversy, the Spokesman notes.

Tim Connor, a former investigative journalist and longtime critic of the mall project, said Ormsby was a “central figure in the fraudulent RPS garage transaction” and was cited in an IRS report detailing tax-exempt securities violations.

River Park Square, for those unfamiliar with Spokane, is a downtown mall that originally opened in 1999. Its development was highly controversial; legal wrangling over the project cost the City of Spokane millions of dollars.

The River Park Square fiasco is relevant to Ormsby's recommendation because he was the Bond Counsel for the Spokane Downtown Foundation. The foundation was established by Betsy Cowles to finance the expansion of the mall's parking garage. (Cowles' family, by the way, owns the Spokesman-Review, the Inland Empire Paper Company, and has a hand in much of the commerce that goes on in Spokane).

The Spokane Downtown Foundation decided to sell bonds, backed by parking revenues, to purchase the parking garage (but not the land it sits on) after the garage had been renovated and expanded. That's where Ormsby comes in:

His firm sent a letter to investors saying the bonds qualified for certain tax breaks when, in fact, they didn't.

The firm, then known as Preston Gates and Ellis, paid $1.4 million in penalties and taxes assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. The agency's Office of Professional Responsibility investigated whether Ormsby and another attorney performed due diligence. In a December 2007 settlement, described by the IRS as "groundbreaking," Ormsby admitted no wrongdoing but agreed that for the next 18 months he would not issue any opinions on certain financing issues without approval from the head of the firm's public finance group.

The December 2007 settlement came three and a half years after the Internal Revenue Service decided (PDF) that the foundation wasn't in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of U.S. tax law, which requires that tax-exempt organizes be organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes:

The Spokane Downtown Foundation is not a qualified 501(c)(3) organization and is not exempt from taxation under the Code. The bonds are not qualified private activity bonds under IRC §145. This is addressed solely because the organizing documents purport that this corporation is essentially described in 501(c)(3) of the Code. It is not. The Bonds are taxable private activity bonds.

But that's not the end of the story. There's another twist, as explained by the last few paragraphs of the original Spokesman story I linked to:

After the garage was expanded but before it was purchased by the downtown foundation, a dispute arose between the Cowles development companies that owned the mall and one of its key tenants, AMC Theatres. The development companies are subsidiaries or affiliates of the parent company of The Spokesman-Review.

When the theater chain threatened to pull out, Ormsby suggested the development companies lower the sale price of the garage. Instead, the developers offered to cover any lost revenue if the chain didn’t open, but only if the foundation and the public board that would operate the garage would keep that offer secret.

The foundation and the board agreed, AMC eventually reached an agreement with Cowles development companies and the garage was purchased for $26 million. Critics have said Ormsby should have told the foundation it should not buy the garage at a price they contend was inflated by an unusual form of appraisal and instead demanded the price come down or the deal be dropped.

By the way, the reason AMC got upset (which isn't cited in the excerpt above) is that they discovered that their patrons would not receive free parking.

So, to review, Betsy Cowles set up this foundation, ostensibly a charity, but really just a vehicle for selling tax-exempt bonds which were later found to be taxable. She and people who work for her then approached Michael Ormsby, asking him to be the Foundation's Bond Counsel. Ormsby agreed.

Ormsby wrote the letter which assured investors that the bonds would be qualified private activity bonds issued to finance a facility owned and operated by a 501(c)(3) organization. This letter was used to entice investors to buy the bonds. Later, when the whole scheme started falling apart, Ormsby failed to advise the Spokane Downtown Foundation that it needed to renegotiate the terms of the deal to buy the parking garage.

Ormsby and other players in the River Park Square fiasco have escaped potential prosecution, critics contend, because the current U.S. Attorney for Eastern Washington, James McDevitt (who was appointed by Dubya) was himself involved in the garage transaction. McDevitt did not recuse himself from the investigation until 2007, which apparently made it difficult for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who were handling the case to get to the bottom of everything.

McDevitt has been in office since his confirmation in 2001.

Now our two United States Senators have recommended another lawyer who was involved in the River Park Square controversy and investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence. We have to ask: Is this the person we really want as U.S. Attorney for Eastern Washington?

We urge the Obama administration to carefully review the River Park Square fiasco and determine the extent of Michael Ormsby's involvement in that messy business as part of what we hope will be a thorough vetting process.

Legislation to allow cities to recoup criminal justice costs falls victim to first session cutoff

Earlier this week, the first cutoff deadline of the 2009 legislative session came and went, leaving behind a lot of dead bills in its wake. One of those bills was HB 1823, which would have allowed a city to recover the costs of prosecuting cases that meet the statutory definition of felony in certain circumstances.

HB 1283 was sponsored by Representatives Larry Springer and Roger Goodman, among others. I mention Larry and Roger specifically, as they happen to be my Representatives from NPI's home district (the 45th) and I want them to get the credit they deserve for bringing the idea to the table.

[Disclaimer: I work for the City of Seattle in my professional life. I drafted the language in HB 1823 at the request of the Association of Washington Cities in my professional capacity. I am writing this post in my private capacity, and as a resident of an Eastside city. It reflects my own personal views, and not those of the City of Seattle, any agency or department within the City of Seattle, or any elected official of the City of Seattle.]

Hopefully this bill will be reintroduced next legislative session. In the meantime, I'd like to explain why it's good legislation.

First, here's a bit of general background and historical context.

County prosecutors prosecute all felony cases within the county, and all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases within unincorporated county areas.

They prosecute in the name of the state, and, with some technical exceptions, bring charges under state law, which is codified in the Revised Code of Washington.

(Felonies are punishable by more than one year in prison; misdemeanors are punishable by up to 90 days in jail; gross misdemeanors are punishable by at least 91 and no more than 365 days in jail. For purposes of this post, I'll use the term "misdemeanors" to refer to both misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors.)

City prosecutors prosecute misdemeanors occurring with the city. They prosecute in the name of the city, and bring charges under city codes.

For the most part, city criminal codes define misdemeanor crimes that are similar to their state counterparts.

In the early to mid 1990s, some cities hit upon what to them seemed a great cost-cutting idea. They either refused to adopt criminal codes at all, or they adopted some less costly criminal codes but left out the difficult or expensive ones, such as domestic violence. That left the counties to prosecute what were essentially city misdemeanors, at county expense.

The counties finally woke up to the fact that some cities were shifting prosecution costs to the county. The counties went to the Legislature, which passed RCW 39.34.180(1), which essentially makes cities and counties responsible for their respective criminal prosecution costs.

Consequently, a city that decides not to adopt a criminal code or to prosecute misdemeanors occurring within city limits has two choices: pay the county for doing the work, or do the work themselves.

That provision made, and continues to make, good sense. It is not fair for cities to pass off their criminal justice costs to the county.

For the next twelve years or so, everything seemed to work okay. But the budget-generated massive cuts in county programs have shaken things up a bit. Some counties, such as King County, have suffered huge deficits, and have cut funding for the County Prosecutor's office. The King County Prosecutor has had to lay off prosecutors and change its charging practices.

The changes affect the prosecution of theft, malicious mischief (think property damage), forgery and certain types of similar crimes involving property in which the value of the property is $1,000 or less are now being referred directly by law enforcement to municipal or district courts as misdemeanor offenses.

The law currently provides that any of these crimes involving more than $250 is a felony. The practice for years had been to refer these property crimes to municipalities if the value was $500 or less.

(As an editorial aside, Seattle is required by statute to have its own municipal court and to prosecute all misdemeanors occurring within its city limits. Consequently, Seattle did not pass along its costs to the county.)

That policy essentially reduces to misdemeanors crimes the legislature has determined are serious enough to be felonies.

That poses some huge questions about how counties use resources.

But from a purely economic standpoint, the counties are doing to cities precisely what the cities were doing to the counties in the 1990s - passing along criminal justice costs to another entity by inaction. It was improper for cities to do that in the 1990s and it is improper for counties to to that today.

HB 1823 would require counties to reimburse cities for handling county "declines" that are based on budgetary filing guidelines rather than proof issues.

(A "decline" is a decision by a prosecuting entity, whether county or city, not to file charges. Cases can be declined for many reasons, but usually it involves proof problems of one sort or another.)

In other words, if a county declines to file a felony theft and instead refers it to the city, the county would have to reimburse the city if the declination is based on the county's filing standards rather than on a proof problem (such as difficulty proving that the value of stolen property exceeded the felony amount). In the alternative, the county could contract with the city to handle such cases.

Counties are understandably concerned about unintended consequences or disagreements in the interpretation of 1823’s language. But those concerns can be addressed by amending the bill with counties and cities at the table.

PTA tells legislature, "Kids can't wait!"

"It's basic. Our children can't wait. Yes we can!"

Those were the chants of approximately four hundred PTA members, parents, grandparents and students from the steps of the Capitol building in Olympia on Thursday. Senator Rosemary McAuliffe (D-1st District) called the gathering the largest rally that she had ever seen at the Capitol, and with sixteen years in the Senate, that's saying something.

I counted at least fifteen legislators and government officials shivering in the 35 degree winter shade, waiting to speak to the crowd or just lending visual support to the main issue of the group, education finance and reform.


Like many other public interest groups, the Washington State PTA converges on the Capitol Campus on one day during every legislative session to lobby lawmakers, but not every year includes a rally like this one. This year called for extra effort because of possibility of a serious overhaul of the state's public education system for the first time in over thirty years.


Shockingly, the formulas that determine how much the state sends to school districts were created three decades ago.

According to Funding Washington Schools:

The old 1978 basic ed. formulas don’t consider the cost of what we now consider to be essentials: computers and other forms of technology, security, telephone lines, foreign language, Advanced Placement, remediation for the growing population of disadvantaged children, and the WASL. Additionally, just the cost of educational resources have increased significantly since 1978.

Many Washington schools can't afford librarians and buses (the basics) let alone new technology and foreign language classes.

The state just hasn't kept up with changes in education and it's now paying the price in low test scores and high drop out rates.

Senate education leaders, McAuliffe and Eric Oemig (D-45th District) expect some form of education reform to survive the session. That's good news to PTA members, but they still hope that their legislators are listening to their stories about overcrowded classrooms and canceled school lunch programs and bus transportation, and will make real improvements that they can actually seein the classrooms and not just hollow promises.

Chris Matthews schools Darrell Issa on Hardball: It's the Democratic Party, genius

Earlier this evening on Hardball, Chris Matthews had Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and Republican Congressman Darrell Issa on his show as guests talking about President Obama's budget and the deficit. To Matthews' annoyance, Issa referred to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" in the middle of a derisive attack on Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues.

As soon as Issa had stopped talking, Matthews took him to task.

MATTHEWS (to Issa): Well... I think the Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

Do we have to do this every night? Why do people talk like this? Is this just fighting words, to get the name wrong?

ISSA: No, this isn't intended to be fighting words...

MATTHEWS (interrupts Issa): They call themselves the Democratic Party. Let's just call people what they call themselves and stop the Mickey Mouse, here... Save that for the stump. Seriously.

ISSA: Chris, Chris... Chris....

MATTHEWS: Now let's get to the issue here. Seriously. We've got a fiscal challenge.... I want to get back to Congressman Frank and to some English here.

The whole exchange is hilariously entertaining, and may be viewed at MSNBC's website. While we have no qualms about using "Graveyard of Progress" as a metonym for the Republican Party (they continually profess their hatred and disgust for progressive values, after all) we generally refer to Republicans as Republicans, and try to avoid derogatory language as much as possible, because petty insults and name calling typically end up turning into distractions.

Representative Darrell Issa would do well to learn that lesson - and Chris Matthews, who has a history of denigrating other people, would do well to follow his own advice regularly and consistently.

Snow again visits Western Washington

What a snowy winter this has been.

Many Western Washingtonians woke up this morning to find snow flurries coming down outside pretty thickly between 4 AM and 6 AM this morning. In some areas (including Redmond) the snow is still falling, but temperatures are expected to rise to forty degrees Farenheit by 5 PM tonight, which should make roadways drivable for the evening commute and cause much of the snow to melt.

The National Weather Service says:

ADDITIONAL SNOWFALL OF AN INCH OR TWO AND FREEZING TEMPERATURES WILL WARRANT CAUTION THIS MORNING...

HAZARDOUS DRIVING CONDITIONS WILL BE THE RULE ACROSS WESTERN WASHINGTON THIS MORNING DUE TO SNOW THAT HAS ALREADY FALLEN...POSSIBLE ACCUMULATIONS OF ANOTHER INCH OR TWO...AND FREEZING TEMPERATURES.

SCATTERED SNOW SHOWERS WILL CONTINUE THIS MORNING AS THE UPPER LEVEL LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM OVER THE AREA MOVES EASTWARD. LOCAL ADDITIONAL ACCUMULATIONS OF AN INCH OR TWO ARE POSSIBLE. IN ADDITION TEMPERATURES HAVE FALLEN BELOW FREEZING ACROSS MOST OF WESTERN WASHINGTON THIS MORNING...SO ROADS AND SIDEWALKS WILL BE ICY EVEN IF THEY ARE FREE OF SNOW.

THESE CONDITIONS WILL BE RELATIVELY SHORT LIVED. TEMPERATURES WILL CLIMB ABOVE FREEZING BY NOON TODAY WITH HIGHS AROUND 40...AND MOST OF THE AREA WILL HAVE PARTLY SUNNY SKIES.

The fast melt is welcome news, because few have forgotten the prolonged Arctic blast that made getting around miserably difficult in December.

The snow and ice is causing a number of Metro delays and reroutes. The agency has a fairly complete list of what's affected at their website.

SDOT released this update an hour and a half ago:

Crews were dedicated specifically to the West Seattle Bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and salt was applied to make sure they remained in good condition. Roadway Structures crews inspected bridges and overpasses to make sure walkways were passable and snow was not presenting a problem for opening and closing the moveable bridges. Trucks with plows and sanders were also directed to trouble spots in West Seattle and Southeast Seattle, called in by Seattle Police and King County Metro Transit.

By 7 a.m. air temperatures were rising and snow was turning to slush on many streets. Crews will continue plowing and sanding as long as they are needed.

Numerous highways, including SR 520 and I-405, are parking lots this morning, with spinouts and collisions causing big backups. Many Puget Sound area school districts have decided to go with a two hour delayed start as opposed to closing all day, although a few districts (like Bellevue) have decided to shut down.

If you're going out this morning, take it easy and be careful.

Contemplating Washington schools

My daughters' elementary school of about 500 kids in Texas had two school counselors, a full-time nurse, two P.E. teachers, an art teacher and a vice principal. Ditto for the schools they attended in Massachusetts.

The elementary school one of my daughters attends now in Redmond doesn’t have most of those professionals. It also has about 500 students, but no art teacher; instead, parent volunteers lead monthly art lessons. There’s no vice principal--I guess the kids never misbehave. There’s only one P.E. teacher, not two, one part-time counselor, not two, and a third of a nurse. The nurse is actually a whole person but we only get her a third of the time. The problem is, accidents and illness don't happen every third day and parent volunteers in the "health room" aren't qualified to treat a broken leg or a severe allergic reaction.

This, to me, is a tragic accident or lawsuit waiting to happen.

Despite this, our schools are better than many in Washington. Imagine my friend’s school in North Bend with 42 students stuffed into a 7th grade algebra class. Forty two! That's no way to learn.

Today I’ll be joining a group of about 500 PTA parents from across the state to make a statement in Olympia. Our noon rally in front of the Capitol building will be for one thing—to ask the legislature to make this the year of education reform. Our kids deserve better, and they keep growing while leaders keep stalling on doing what’s right.

Schools need more money. More money equals more teachers, nurses and counselors and it means that kids can go to school a little longer each day like my kids did when we lived in Texas and Massachusetts.

But more money is just the start. This winter, the legislature’s Basic Education Finance Joint Task Force came up with a lot of smart ideas about how to improve the current system, but stakeholder disagreement sacked their proposals. Fortunately, legislators aren’t giving up and are betting on a new set of bills, House Bill 2261 and Senate Bill 6048, to forge a meaningful compromise.

There are a lot of kids’ futures riding on these bills and the PTA is not going to let lawmakers forget it.

I love living in Washington and I don’t want to regret moving here. We also love our schools but we know what we are missing--our kids are getting short-changed.

Another bridge, another government council: More sprawl & climate pollution?

In Seattle, the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Evergreen Point Bridge replacement projects get all the hot press. But there is another project of comparable size in Washington State. Or rather, connecting Washington to Oregon. And progressive Washingtonians should be taking notice of it.

The Columbia River Crossing (CRC) will connect Portland, Oregon, with Vancouver, Washington. It will either be built alongside the existing Interstate 5 bridge or replace it outright. The crossing's size could range from six to twelve lanes with light rail and bike lanes - and maybe even wind turbines.

The CRC is an undertaking of many state and local government entities and stakeholder groups. On Wednesday, the City of Portland passed (4-1) a resolution supporting the construction of the full twelve lanes with light rail, a "Columbia River Crossing Mobility Council" that will recommend an annual Mobility Operations Plan, and 13 performance standards to serve as a "performance warranty."

Passage of the resolution was a rare success for Mayor Sam Adams early in his tenure - and hopefully the start of many good things to come.

However, not all that is good for Portland's progressive mayor is good for the environment and progressives. Every environmental group that has weighed in during the process has expressed dismay at the bridge's likely potential to cause sprawl and contribute mightily to climate pollution.

And given the history of Clark County's allowance for sprawl and farmland loss, we should all be very concerned about the increased traffic that would a twelve lane bridge would bring, which could spark the conversion of more farmland and forest into subdivisions filled with McMansions.

The Sightline Institute recently released its annual Cascadia Scorecard highlighting the sharp contrast between Multnomah County's and Clark County's protection of farmland. All the purple dots north of the Columbia River make Clark County look like an LED billboard.

The Columbia River Crossing project managers published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement suggesting bridge expansion would reduce congestion and amazingly not lead to sprawl.

Many local progressives (admittedly, mostly Portland progressives) have argued the DEIS paints an overly rosy picture. Research from other local think tanks suggests we need a more realistic assessment of the consequences.

(See Todd Litman's Smart Transportation Investments series and Clark Williams-Derry's analysis at Sightline's website).

Progressive Washingtonians should lead the charge to ensure the crossing will not negatively impact working farms, healthy forests, and livable communities.

So where to begin? At this point, a twelve lane bridge seems likely, so arguing for a smaller bridge may seem pointless. The finances also stack in favor of a twelve lane bridge. (The estimated cost of an eight lane bridge is $3.77 billion while a twelve lane bridge is $4 billion, so full build-out is merely six percent more - and probably within the standard deviation for the estimated cost).

Meanwhile, building twelve lanes instead of eight lanes provides fifty percent more travel capacity - but therein lies the problem. Bigger, wider urban canyons contribute to greater sprawl. They encourage people to drive more and live further away from where they work. That's not what we want.

So how do we convince decision makers to make the bridge smaller?

The current leverage seems to be through the City of Portland-endorsed "performance warranty." Here's the 13 standards:

• Financial Responsibility
• Construction Funding
• Affordability
• Safety
• Health
• Freight Speed & Reliability
• Transit/HOB/Mode Split
• Mobility
• Diversion
• Economic Growth Incentives (Transit-Oriented Development)
• Vehicle Miles Travled / Greenhouse Gase Emissions
• Land Use
• Regional Mobility

So there's a possibility we can get our foot in the door. Unfortunately, the door may be cracked too little to exert much influence.

There are two problems I can see.

First, the members of the Columbia River Crossing Mobility Council (there's a mouthful) have no direct representation to local constituents.

Its members will be from: the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation, City of Portland, City of Vancouver, Tri-Met, Metro, Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Washington Department of Ecology (it is troubling to me that Clark County is not included).

Granted, their annual Mobility Operations Plan will have to be approved or considered by both the Cities of Portland and Vancouver, but this approval or consideration process is not will understood.

Second, the performance standards are ill-defined with no procedure for accountability. It is not clear whether these will be minimum standards or serve merely as an annual score for the crossing's success (or lack thereof).

And although "Attachment B" to the City of Portland's resolution indicates the bridge must also meet both Oregon's and Washington's vehicle miles traveled and global warming pollution reduction goals, it is unclear whether the project will be required to purchase offset credits or take other actions.

And there is no indication how the "land use" performance standard will be used to prevent the otherwise likely sprawl in Clark County. All the document says regarding the land use standards is that it is "being developed."

Hopefully the eventual land use element is innovative enough to permanently stop sprawl in Clark County.

Here's my solution: Clark County enters a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Columbia River Crossing Mobility Council that it will not expand its urban growth areas (UGAs), or upzone its rural, agricultural, or forest lands.

If Clark County fails to live up to its Memorandum of Understanding, then bridge tolls for passenger vehicles should automatically increase and the revenue be invested in new light rail and bike improvements. It's one option - an option I hope the Crossing Mobility Council seriously considers.

Obama denies terror suspects right to trial

At some point, the honeymoon has to be over. The low point during the Clinton administration, to me, came when Clinton and his deputies joined with Republicans and tried to enact what they called "welfare reform".

What worries us is the prospect of the new administration following the same harmful "triangulation" tack. Is President Obama going to be backtracking on any of the progressive ideals that he says are the points on his moral compass?

It's still too early too tell, but The Independent is reporting that basic due process rights are still being denied to alleged "enemy combatants".

Less than a month after signing an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, President Barack Obama has quietly agreed to keep denying the right to trial to hundreds more terror suspects held at a makeshift camp in Afghanistan that human rights lawyers have dubbed "Obama's Guantanamo".

The air base is about to undergo a $60m (£42m) expansion that will double its size, meaning it can house five times as many prisoners as remain at Guantanamo.

Apart from staff at the International Red Cross, human rights groups and journalists have been barred from Bagram, where former prisoners say they were tortured by being shackled to the ceiling of isolation cells and deprived of sleep..

While we at the Northwest Progressive Institute are generally supportive of Barack Obama, we'd rather we be the administration's conscience than the administration's cheerleaders. We cannot continue to imprison people under the wrongful presumption "guilty until proven innocent." Our new President should know better.

A bitter economic pill

So this is what it feels like to be "collateral damage."

My story is surely nothing short of commonplace these days. In October my company laid off 40 people as a direct consequence of the financial system meltdown. That’s no small thing for a company that was only about 100 people.

I work at a technology startup. When the banks stopped lending money, Wall Street freaked out and the bottom fell out of the stock market.

When that happened, the venture capital firms freaked out and they suddenly got really skittish about making further investments.

It's those investments that allow technology startups to grow and flourish. But when investments that had been promised in the summer were yanked away in the fall, our upper management had no choice but to gnaw off one of the company's legs, as it were, to survive.

I was lucky. I kept my job, but at reduced hours. Everyone who's still here has taken an indefinite pay cut. We miss the friends we no longer see in the halls, people we no longer have lunch with.

But, we're counting our blessings. We're still employed. We have health care. There's plenty of parking spaces to go around, now.

I know that this same scenario and others very much like it must be playing out at tens of thousands of small companies all across America.

We are the collateral damage. We are the unintended consequences of Wall Street bigwigs playing with fire.

One thought I just cannot shake is the gross injustice of it all.

Those who played with fire, got bailed out by the government. Those companies who had grown too big to exist, got help.

Those of us who were doing our level best to behave responsibly and working so hard to create innovation and real economic growth, got burned.

Across America, people are wondering how they're going to pay the bills on reduced wages. Wondering what's going to happen if their barely-surviving companies can't make it. Whether their unemployment benefits will last until they find a job. Whether they'll even be able to find another job.

Wondering if there is enough time, yet, to recover from all this before retirement or before the kids have to go to college.

I know. I'm one of them. You probably are too. Our numbers are legion, making daily trade offs on whether to pay this bill or that bill, whether to buy shoes for our daughters' growing feet, or whether to pay for a prescription.

It leaves a very bitter taste. All of us, watching our financial positions erode like a sandy bluff in a hurricane. It's bad enough for me; I might have to go look for another job if my company doesn't make it. But I've got it easy.

I think about my company's founders, who have poured their lives into this business. They're a lot older than me. This is their shot. Their big chance to make it. And they may well see everything they have built, destroyed.

Washed into the stormy sea, because of a situation they had no hand in creating and that has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the technology they've worked so hard to contribute to the world.

Now that, is a bitter pill.

And when I stop to consider that the bigwigs who did the playing with fire were already tremendously wealthy men who didn't even need to be playing with fire--when I consider that the amount of money my company would have needed so as not to have to tell those 40 people "hey, don't come to work tomorrow" is basically loose change compared to those bigwigs' personal fortunes.

It's not just a pill. It's the whole damn bottle.

So, Congress and President Obama, when you get around to doing what the reputable economists are saying and bump the stimulus package up to the trillion and a half or so that's probably realistic for pulling out of this national tailspin, let me offer a word of advice:

Figure out a way to help all the small companies like mine who were doing fine before, but who, since we've become collateral damage, need some bailouts of our own.

You've got this thing called the Small Business Administration. Give them a half a trillion dollars to lend to us on favorable terms.

I promise, we'll turn it into real innovation and economic growth. Not into corporate jets and lavish executive retreats.

Liveblogging Obama's address to Congress

President Barack Obama has just walked into the House chamber to deliver his first official address to Congress. He's shaking hands now as he approaches the podium.

Here we go!

6:18 PM: Obama did a beautiful job of explaining how we got into the mess we're in, laying out the mistakes and missed opportunities of the Bush error and the last few decades in stark detail. He thanked Congress for passing the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and promised that the hundreds of billions that Congress appropriated would be spent transparently and wisely.

6:26 PM: "Nobody messes with Joe" ... great line!

6:28 PM: The flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy, Obama notes. We need to restart lending, or economic recovery is going to be choked off. Oh, and Wall Street bankers... the Obama administration is watching you!

6:36 PM: Good to hear Obama calling for sacrifice and a new way of looking at our budget - as a blueprint for the future of America. And it's wonderful to hear him talking about our common wealth as a foundation for economic prosperity. As he said, government doesn't supplant private enterprise when it invests, it acts as a catalyst to help businesses everywhere.

6:40 PM: Obama just asked Congress to send him legislation that would put a cap on carbon emissions and set up a market for polluters to trade carbon credits. And he called for greater investment in renewable energy.

6:42 PM: The time for healthcare reform is now! Obama notes that in the last month, Congress passed legislation to expand healthcare coverage for children. He declared that every American ought to have quality, affordable healthcare. We agree: healthcare must be a right. It's not a privilege.

6:48 PM: Agreed - we need to strengthen our schools. The President is asking all of us to do our part, to step up to the plate.

And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship.

But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country - and this country needs and values the talents of every American.

6:54 PM: An end to tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas - it's about time!

6:56 PM: We're going back to honest budgeting practices:

That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules - and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.

And we're going to pursue a responsible end to the occupation of Iraq.

7:01 PM: Obama uses a great phrase to describe our symbiotic relationship with the other nations of the world:

In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun.

For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.

7:09 PM: The speech just ended, with a couple of heartening stories and inspiring rhetorical flourishes. It was forceful, yet unifying at the same time.

President Obama to emphasize America's can-do spirit in tonight's speech

In a little over an hour, Barack Obama will deliver his first official Address to Congress as President of the United States. It's not being called a "State of the Union", but for all practical purposes, that's what it is.

The White House has released an excerpt from Obama's prepared remarks to highlight what the President plans to emphasize tonight. It's a pretty stirring message, and it'll probably sound even better than it reads when Obama says it.

But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach.

They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure.

What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more.

Amen to that. We've bounced back from tough times before - there's no reason why we can't do so again.

Decades ago, as he assumed office during the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered many of the same reassuring observations President Obama plans to make tonight when he spoke these words in his first Inaugural Address:

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it.

Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated.

Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

For eight years America has been governed - or not governed - by an administration that didn't seem to want to acknowledge that economic security was deteriorating, let alone do anything about it.

Now we have a leader who cares - and it shows.

The President's address is scheduled to begin at 6 PM Pacific Time.

Suzan DelBene launching bid for Congress in Washington's 8th District

Last week at the Washington State Democrats' Crab Feed, I had the opportunity to briefly say hello to the first declared Democratic challenger to Dave Reichert in 2010: Suzan DelBene, who was introduced to the crowd by Chairman Dwight Pelz.

Like Darcy Burner, the Democratic standard bearer in 2006 and 2008, DelBene has a background at Microsoft, where she was Corporate Vice President for Mobile Communications from 2004 through 2007. (She also worked at Microsoft from 1989 through 1998 before leaving to join Nimble Technology).

More recently, DelBene has served as a strategic advisor for Global Partnerships, a nonprofit organization that invests in micro-finance institutions in Latin America. And just last month she was appointed to the Board of Directors of ElectroRent.

DelBene has posted a short letter on her website introducing herself and briefly describing her plans to run for Congress.

Dear Neighbor,

Here in Washington's 8th District, we live in one of the most beautiful and prosperous areas in the country. I know that we must work hard to protect our quality of life.

I am a successful businesswoman -- I have been the CEO of a start up and a Microsoft Vice President. I have worked around the globe in business and in lifting people out of poverty. I am a Trustee of Reed College, helping to increase access to higher education. I have worked in medical research and have seen firsthand the power of new treatments. I firmly believe that each challenge we face can be used to create opportunities and get our economy moving again.

I am not a career politician -- my focus has always been on creating opportunity. I have incredible faith in what we can do as a community. I want to listen to you and move us forward by representing the great 8th district in the United States Congress. Tell me more about what's important to you. Contact me at info (at) delbeneforcongress (dot) com.

Sincerely,
Suzan DelBene
Candidate for Congress, Washington State, 8th Congressional District

DelBene is getting a pretty early start, but that's actually a good thing. It takes a long time to put together a winning campaign for federal office. Starting early is especially important for candidates who haven't already built up a network of political contacts running for local office.

We've heard nothing but good things about Suzan to date. We look forward to learning more about her and seeing her campaign take shape in the months ahead.

Former Governor Gary Locke said to be Obama's pick for Secretary of Commerce

To those who had been complaining that the Pacific Northwest was underrepresented in the new administration, we offer the following as proof of the timeless expression good things come to those who wait:

President Barack Obama's likely third pick for Commerce secretary is former Washington Gov. Gary Locke, a senior administration official said Monday.

Locke was the nation's first Chinese-American governor when he served two terms, ending in 2005.

Obama's expected choice of Locke arose less than two weeks after his most recent pick, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, backed out. Just over a week after Obama named him and he accepted, Gregg cited "irresolvable conflicts" with the policies of the Democratic president.

If Locke is indeed the new Commerce nominee, kudos to President Obama for a solid choice. Although his overall record as governor wasn't all that stellar, he did a great job strengthening our relationship with key trading partners and promoting Washington State exports. He certainly has the needed background for the job.

One of the best things he did as governor was to use his line item veto to sign into law our state's open primary in the spring of 2004. Later that year, the Grange succeeded in duping voters into replacing the open primary with "Top Two", but two successive federal courts found the Grange initiative to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court unwisely decided to overturn those rulings, so for now we're stuck with "Top Two", which restricts voter choice and tramples all over political parties' First Amendment rights.

Since leaving office at the beginning of 2005, Locke has been with Seattle's Davis Wright Tremaine as a partner.

He has remained active in Washington politics; for instance, he hosted a fundraising event for Darcy Burner early in her first bid for Congress. He also served as a co-chair for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in the Evergreen State.

Locke would be the third Asian American in Obama's cabinet (Retired General Eric Shinsheki became the new Secretary of Veterans' Affairs last month, and Steven Chu became the new Secretary of Energy).

At Commerce one of Locke's top deputies would be a fellow Northwesterner, Oregon State University's Jane Lubchenco, who was tapped by President Obama to take over NOAA. Lubchenco's confirmation hearing was February 12th.

Also slated to represent the region in the upper echelons of the Obama administration are Ron Sims, who has been nominated as Deputy Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowke, who is supposedly Obama's choice for Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a Cabinet level position.

Are we ready to open the door to Cuba?

With Bush now out of office, it looks like our relations with Cuba could finally get some attention. Cuba, which sits ninety miles off the coast of Florida, is one of the world’s last communist strongholds.

Sadly, George W. Bush did nothing in eight years to improve our relations with Cuba or the lives of its people. Fortunately, there is bipartisan recognition in Congress of the failure of our current approach, and it appears that even Republicans are ready to make changes.

In a report issued Monday, minority members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated that the U.S. needs a new approach in its dealings with the island. From the report’s highest ranking committee member, Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN):

After 47 years, however, the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban people’...we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy, and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests.

Recommendations in the report line up with President Obama’s campaign promises to ease family travel and remittance restrictions, but stop short of proposing lifting the trade embargo - which must be a goal on the way to improved international relations.

In his book The J Curve, political scientist Ian Bremmer theorizes that in order to democratize nations, we must open them to new things and ideas:

...as the energies of globalization open up the least politically and economically developed areas of the world, as the citizens of closed states learn more about life beyond their borders and discover that they don't have to live as they do, tyrants must expend more and more effort to isolate their societies.

Bremmer believes that repressive governments don’t dislike but actually want and need policies such as our Cuban trade embargo in order to keep their populations hungry and dependent on them.

People in closed societies don’t know what they are missing and are more likely to accept the status quo (think North Korea).

Trading with Cuba has the potential to expose Cubans to new products and ideas: sporting goods, women's rights, and helpfully, new auto parts.

(Imagine how much free time a Cuban would have if they could just buy a new belt for their '57 Chevy instead of having to fashion it themselves.)

With autocratic Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez cozying up to both Cuban President Raul Castro, and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, it's time for the United States to show it's ready to leave behind the failed policies of the past.

Relaxing travel and remittance restrictions is a good start. Dialogue and trade between the two nations could put Cuba on a path to greater openness and democratic freedoms. If Republicans are ready to start down this path, Obama can surely step in line beside them or better yet, move ahead and lead the way.

SB 5292 would reform the "three strikes" law

I imagine I would be safe in assuming that anyone reading The Advocate is familiar with the "Three Strikes" law, but just in case, I'll give a quick summary.

There are certain crimes that are considered so serious that, when someone has been convicted of any three of them, the third conviction requires a life sentence. Crimes that fall within this category are called "Strike" offenses.

SB 5292 ("5292") would remove the crime of Second Degree Robbery ("Rob 2") from the list of "Strike" offenses. That may sound like a bad idea - John Carlson's recent special column in the Seattle Times certainly takes that position - it makes sense if you actually analyze the true impact.

Let me make one thing clear: I am in favor or the Three Strikes law. I believe that there are certain crimes that should carry life in prison for the third time around. I would even go so far as to say that I think there are crimes I'd like to see carry life in prison on the second or even first strike.

In other words, I am a staunch law and order type.

That being said, I favor removing Rob 2 from the list of strike offenses. I take this position based on the definition of Rob 2 and the belief that there are ways to alleviate the concerns of those who believe 5292 would lead to all manner of horrible consequences. In the world of criminal trials, this is referred to as the proverbial "parade of horribles."

I prefer to be guided by notions of justice and punishment that fits the crime. The following quote from Terence (I don't know who Terence is, but you can find his quote in Harper's Book of Quotations):

"The strictest justice is sometimes the greatest injustice."

I do not mean to cast aspersions at those who oppose 5292. But I do mean to educate them so that they can at least form their opinions with full information. John Carlson's article provides a good vehicle for looking at the issue.

He raises three basic concerns. He asserts that Rob 2 is a sufficiently serious crime to be considered a Strike offense.

He also expresses concern that serious Rob 1 charges that currently are pleaded to the lesser Rob 2 charge will no longer count as Strike offenses.

Finally, he then identifies a couple of rather violent defendants who would be released under 5292. I will take each argument in turn.

How is Rob 2 defined?

All state criminal statutes are contained in the "Revised Code of Washington", or the RCWs. (You can look up any RCW chapter and section at the Legislature's website. Just click on "Revised Code of Washington").

RCW 9A.56.190 defines robbery in general, and RCW 9A.56.200-9A.56.210 define Rob 1 and Rob 2. Rob 2 occurs when a person:

"unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another ... against his will by the use of threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his property .... Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial."

Rob 1 occurs when the perpetrator is armed with a deadly weapon (or what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon) or inflicts bodily injury.

I emphasized the phrase "the degree of force is immaterial" for a very specific reason: Rob 2 can be committed in ways that are in no way serious enough to count as a Strike offense. A person who is caught shoplifting and pushes the store security person in the chest has committed Rob 2.

That is not to say the person will be charged with Rob 2 - most likely he/she will be charged with one count of 3rd Degree Theft and one count of 4th Degree Assault, each of which are gross misdemeanors carrying a maximum sentence of one year in jail. But that is not to say the person won't be charged with Rob 2.

Charging standards differ from county to county, and depend to a great extent on the culture of the particular county prosecutors and the counties themselves.

The bottom line is this: Rob 2, while serious in and of itself, does not rise to the level of being Strike-worthy. When dealing with a potential life sentence, it is simply unjust to include a crime that sweeps so broadly.

Rob 2 as a Plea Negotiation Tool

It is the nature of the beast that some criminal charges are pleaded down to less serious charges, or charges that carry a more lenient penalty.

Sentencing in felony cases is governed by the Sentencing Reform Act, or SRA. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances in a particular case, judges are required to sentence within a "standard range" as calculated pursuant to the SRA.

The standard range is determined from a table that is based on the crime and the defendant's criminal history.

Because the SRA leaves little room for judicial discretion in sentencing felons, the only real wiggle room for negotiating is to find a crime that carries a lower standard range. Thus, someone charged with Rob 1 would be more willing to plead guilty to Rob 2, which carries a lower standard range. But prosecutors do not reduce Rob 1 charges willy-nilly; they generally offer reductions only when there are legitimate proof issues with the more serious charge.

That explains why a defendant might plead to Rob 2 rather than Rob 1. But if a defendant already has a prior Strike offense, he/she runs a serious risk by pleading to another Strike offense such as Rob 2.

Guilty pleas under that scenario would be on the rare side. If a defendant has two prior Strike offenses, it would be malpractice for a defense attorney to advise a guilty plea to a third Strike offense.

So what does that all mean? It means that reductions from Rob 1 to Rob 2 are likely to be accepted by those with no prior Strike offenses.

It also means that those charged with Rob 2 have less incentive to plead as charged; they would be better served going to trial even in the example described above involving a shoplift and a shove.

If Rob 2 were removed from the Strike offenses, many of the cases involving less threatening behavior could and would be resolved by guilty pleas as charged.

The Parade of Horribles

Under 5292, any defendant sentenced to life in prison based on one or more Rob 2 convictions as Strike offenses would be entitled to be re-sentenced based on the SRA as if Rob 2 were not a Strike offense.

The Rob 2 conviction(s) would still count in determining the standard sentencing range, just not as a Strike offense.

In the world of criminal trials, a relatively common tactic is to point to a "parade of horribles" that would flow from the other side's arguments. (The parade of horribles is an equal opportunity argument - both prosecutors and defense attorneys have resorted to that argument.)

Carlson supports his argument by citing three examples of serious felons who would be released under 5292. But for every serious felon who would be released because one or more of their Strike offenses was a Rob 2, one could undoubtedly find examples of felons who would remain in prison for life based on Rob 2 convictions that do not justify such a sentence.

More to the point, 5292 would not eliminate the impact of Rob 2 convictions on sentencing ranges, nor would it preclude the legislature from increasing the impact of Rob 2 convictions on a defendant's sentencing range.

And those defendants who would be released would only be released because they had served the sentence prescribed by the SRA.

The Punishment Must Fit the Crime

Our criminal justice system is based on the concept that the punishment must fit the crime. Stated another way, the sentence imposed for a particular crime should be proportional to the circumstances of the crime.

SB 5292 recognizes the unfairness that can result when Strike crimes are defined too broadly; it helps maintain "justice" within our criminal justice system.

The words of Felix Frankfurther, one of the greatest U.S. Supreme Court Justices, still resonate today:

"It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals."

81st Academy Awards: Different look and feel - but still the same spectacle

If you're watching the Oscars tonight, like I am, you've probably noticed the producers of this year's Awards have tried pretty hard to shake up the format as much as they possibly can, hoping for a boost in ratings.

The stage and interior design looks significantly different than it has in years past, presenters are staying on stage to announce multiple awards, and host Hugh Jackman opened the ceremony with a musical number rather than a monologue.

The stylistic changes don't really do much for me - I typically watch regardless of who is hosting or how the ceremony is put together - but I really can't see how the different look and feel is much more than window dressing for the undecided. The Oscars have been and always will be a awards ceremony.

And awards ceremonies are pretty predictable televised spectacles - there's only so much that can be tweaked or changed to make them new and exciting.

In fact, this year, the awards are worse in one noticeable respect - the sound isn't very good, particularly the audience applause, which doesn't sound like it's being faithfully transmitted to my television's speakers.

Anyway, here's a tally of the winners so far...

• Achievement in Costume Design: Michael O'Connor, for The Duchess
• Best Animated Feature Film: Wall-E
• Achievement in Makeup: Greg Cannom, for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Achievement in Visual Effects: Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton and Craig Barron, for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Achievement in Art Direction: Donald Graham Burt (set decoration: Victor J. Zolfo) for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
• Best Animated Short Film: La Maison en Petits Cubes
• Best Live Action Short Film: Spielzeugland
• Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz, for Vicky Cristina Barcelona
• Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, for Slumdog Millionaire
• Achievement in Sound Editing: Richard King for The Dark Knight
• Achievement in Sound Mixing: Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke and Resul Pookutty, for Slumdog Millionaire
• Achievement in Film Editing: Chris Dickens, for Slumdog Millionaire
• Best Foriegn Language Film: Departures (from Japan)
• Achievement In Music Written For Motion Pictures (Original Song): "Jai Ho" from Slumdog Millionaire, music by A.R. Rahman, lyrics by Gulzar
• Achievement In Cinematography: Anthony Dod Mantle, for Slumdog Millionaire
• Achievement In Music Written For Motion Pictures (Original Score): A.R. Rahman, for Slumdog Millionaire
• Best Documentary Short: Smile Pinki
• Best Documentary Feature: Man on Wire
• Best Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, for Milk
• Achievement In Directing: Danny Boyle, for Slumdog Millionaire
• Best Actress (Leading Role): Kate Winslet, for The Reader
• Best Actor (Leading Role): Sean Penn, for Milk
• Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire

There weren't too many surprises this year. Slumdog Millionaire did really well, Heath Ledger was posthumuosly honored for his role in The Dark Knight, and the Curious Case of Benjamin Button received a plethora of honors, including achivement in makeup and visual effects.

It was nice to have brief scenes of upcoming films play over the credits. Hopefully they'll continue that tradition in future years.

Meet the hypocrites: Congressman Greg Walden

Once again, another politician from the Northwest, Republican Congressman Greg Walden (OR-02) voted against the stimulus package passed by Congress, but changed his tune when facing the folks at home. Walden's district spans all of the eastern part of Oregon and most of the south.

"I figure my job is to try and do whatever I can to clear the hurdles and get the projects going and the people back to work using these funds."

"They are going to be spent somewhere," he added. "I hope they are spent mostly in this region."

[...]

The region should get as much of those funds as possible because of the backlog of work in the forests, the history of wildfires in the region, a ready and talented workforce and high unemployment, he said.

The "backlog of work in the forests" that Congressman Walden notes in his remarks has to be a reference to his role as a co-sponsor of the Bush Administration's Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which is more accurately referred to as Leave No Tree Standing. As long as Walden's district has trees, then there must be a backlog of work, in his mind.

Congressman Walden's claims that the 2nd District boasts a "ready and talented workforce and high unemployment" don't strike me as something unique to his district that warrant special consideration when funds get disbursed across the state. Given the opportunity most members of Congress would make the same statement about their districts.

It is highly doubtful that most of the stimulus funds for Oregon will be spent in Congressman Walden's district. He represents the most rural areas of Oregon, and while those areas need assistance too, simple math shows that there are just more people living in other areas of the state.

Why spend the most money on the smallest amount of people?

And why would the Obama Administration or Governor Kulongoski reward Congressman Walden by sending his district the greatest portion of the money, after he failed to support the funding in the first place?

Meet the hypocrites: Senator Mike Crapo

Now that the Senate is wrapping up a week-long hiatus to talk to the folks at home, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) is doing his best to support President Obama's stimulus package. There's nothing like having to face your constituents, for a politician to start doing what they can to meet those needs. The problem here is, Mike Crapo didn't vote for the stimulus package. But you wouldn't know it based on his comments this week.

"Approximately $400 million plus, maybe as much as $465 million will come to INL right here in Idaho for hundreds of new jobs and a significantly expedited clean up activity," enthused Crapo.

Sorry, Mike. We have to call you on the load of manure you're spreading across the fields of Idaho. You don't get to oppose the President's plan, vote lock-step with your leadership and then take credit for the good it does. It doesn't work that way.