Washblog

Prefiled legislation -- Who's watching?

Washington state's legislature will reconvene on Monday, January 9.  This will be a 60-day session.  Short -- but extremely important.

Governor Gregoire's proposed budget and priorities are available.  And so is the growing list of prefiled legislation

There are some interesting bills here, indeed -- a number dealing with energy issues. Several by Democrat Jeff Morris from the 40th legislative district have caught my eye:

HB 2347: Promoting the growth of research in the science and technology fields

HB 2348: Extending tax relief for aluminum smelters.

HB 2349: Providing new renewable energy standards.

HB 2350: Limiting the disclosure of energy infrastructure information.

HB 2351: Concerning energy resource planning and renewable energy standards.

Representative Morris is Chair of the Technology, Energy, and Communications committee.  At first glance, some of this legislation looks worthy. But some looks fishy.

HB 2350 contains a mix of new privacy protections, some of which would seem to encourage secrecy in an industry known for repeatedly cheating the public. This bill contains an odd mix of privacy protections that seem wholesome (for library patrons and students, for example) -- and others that go outside energy infrastructure to limit disclosure requirements in a number of sectors.  

HB 2348, which provides "tax relief" for our state's aluminum smelters, also raises suspicions. Perhaps there is a solid public policy reason for this law. If so, I'd like to hear what it is.   Aluminum smelters that I know about in Washington State are associated with the underregulated release of toxics  into our environment -- not only aluminum, but also cyanide and other chemicals.

Kaiser Aluminim in Spokane County is a Superfund site.  Clearly, it is the public that needs relief -- from taxes we pay to subsidize this corporate irresponsibility, and from the poison these corporations force into our bodies and the bodies of our children.  Let's not forget that both these substances are suspected neurotoxicants and reproductive toxicants.

Who's watching Rep. Morris and our other legislators, I wonder? These dense, technical public policy proposals can't be judged quickly. They need serious, in-depth legislative analysis by public interest groups that have the capacity to keep up with them as they are generated.

Drilling in ANWR: How WA Reps voted

December 28, 2005 update to this post: I was informed by Jim DiPeso of Repamerica that Reichert supported a Point of Order in the House that would have stripped the ANWR drilling authorization out of the Defense Appropriations bill.

House Resolution 639 waived this Point of Order, therefore allowing the ANWR drilling provision to stay in the bill. Reichert's nay vote on 639 went against the Republican mainstream (there were 21 Republican nays to 179 yeas). The other two Washington Republicans in the US House, Doc Hastings and Kathy McMorris, voted yea.

Sixteen Democrats voted on the other side (for 639). These Democrats were effectively voting for drilling in ANWR. If they had voted no on 639, as Reichert did, the Point of Order would have prevailed and the ANWR drilling authorization would have been stripped out of the appropriations bill in the House. The appropriations bill then went to the Senate, of course, where Washington's Maria Cantwell led the effort to defeat it.

---

It's worth keeping up with how Washington State's U.S. Representatives are voting on the issue of oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This is a particularly acute concern for those of us in the 8th Congressional District, where Dave Reichert has been closely watched on his environmental votes.

Here's the roll call for the version of H.R.2863, "Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes," that passed in the House today. The conference report section of this bill contains language that will authorize drilling in ANWR if it passes the Senate.

As we see, Reichert, this time, voted for oil exploration in ANWR. (See note at head of this entry)

Reichert's known for breaking ranks with the Republicans on ANWR by opposing oil exploration in that reserve. In fact, he has broken ranks on several environmental issues, pleasing many of his moderate voters here in the 8th. The suspicion -- based on information from several sources -- is that he has been choosing votes carefully to preserve his appearance of being a moderate -- but doing so in ways that don't affect final outcomes. Given the vulnerability of the 8th Congressional District in this coming election -- and the fact that it may prove to be a tipping point in the balance of power in the House -- it is clear that the Republican in the House has a strong motive to shield Reichert.

As far as this scheme to slip drilling authorization into a defense appropriations bill, The Wilderness Society puts it well:

"It is outrageous that Arctic Refuge drilling has been slipped into the defense appropriations bill. This kind of legislative action is the height of cynicism and bad politics. Major national policy priorities must not be hijacked for the sake of personal political agendas. A vote to remove the arctic drilling provision does not threaten funding for the troops, but rather is a vote to move defense funding quickly and in the normal course of business."

It's time to call our Senators on this one:

Murray: (202) 224-2621, Web form
Cantwell: (202) 224-3441, Web form

Double Johnson Darling-of-the-BIAW Trouble

Yesterday, Brian reported here on Washblog on Steve Johnson's decision to step down from his 47th District state Senate seat to run for state Supreme Court.

Today, we learn from a PI article that Steve Reichert, Representative Dave Reichert's brother, will be running for Johnson's Senate seat.

Dave Reichert, has emerged as a real force for double-speak on the national scene. Consider, for example, that Dave won by 5 percent here in the 8th Congressional District because he portrayed himself as independent from the Republican machine -- but that he then turned around and took $150,000 from Tom De Lay's PAC and also voted to gut ethics rules to protect DeLay's position in the House. It's an irony that his brother is now stepping in to replace Johnson, thus freeing Johnson to benefit from the extremely creepy business of the Building Association Industry of Washington (BIAW) and its fixing of our state judicial elections.

Yes, as the PI reports, Stephen Johnson has announced that he'll be running for Washington Supreme Court and that he expects the oh, potentially dispositive, financial backing of the BIAW. That's the Mr. Johnson whose role on the State Senate Rules committee this year likely helped the BIAW maintain its ability to pour vast sums into our judicial races. More on that later.

Washington State Republicans Come Out Against One Party Rule

*Note: I posted this a few days ago on Kos. Switzer suggested I cross post it here, but, as Switzer is an idiot, I didn't have posting privilages at the time, and so I did not. Now I do!

This is so interesting. This is from the Washington State Legislative Update. Here is what Senator Mike Carrell (R) has to say about one-party rule:

"This is the first session since 1994 in which one party controlled the House, the Senate and the Governor's office. It was like a runaway car with a stuck accelerator and no brakes.
Washington's systemic budget problems were largely ignored, leaving a patchwork of band aids and higher taxes."

Representative Gigi Talcott (R) added:
"A 9.5 cent tax increase and a 12% increase in government spending--- not the usual, useful problem solving legislature I like. Guess we should expect more taxes and more spending when one political party controls everything in Olympia."

Carrell added:
"Despite this, I was able to reach across the aisle to work with other senators to push good ideas and to craft compromise."

Good for you Mike! This is so different from what you used to say and do! A couple of years ago, Washington Law and Politics Best and Worst Legislators in Washington had this to say about then representative Carrell:

A Peacock Mentality
Rep. Mike Carrell
There is precious little consensus in Olympia, but there is one thing most people agree on: Rep. Mike Carrell won't win any "Mr. Popularity" contests anytime soon.
The biggest complaint about Carrell is his approach. "He creates a lot of antagonism and he has kind of a peacock mentality. When he works on issues, he creates an atmosphere that makes it difficult for the best to come forward," says an Olympia bureaucrat.
A lobbyist says, "He's not willing to discuss issues; he wants to make points. He said this publicly, it's on tape, that he never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to; he only asks questions to make a point."
He has his supporters, but as co-chair of the Judiciary Committee he has been accused of killing good legislation only to give Democrats heartburn.

Mike and Gigi, I am so proud of how you have learned the value of bi-partisanship and co-operation between parties in government. I know that the next step is to remind the national Republican party leaders of this classic Republican value, and soon you will all be reaching across the aisles to sing Kumbayah and seek out and embrace the other side.

I don't often agree with you Mike, but on this one, you can be sure I will be doing my very best to make certain that in Washington, one party doesn't control the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch, because as you say, it is "like a runaway car with a stuck accelerator and no brakes."

Only I think I am talking about a different Washington than you are.

Reichert: His votes contradict his moderate rhetoric

A letter to the editor, by Laurence DeShields, the President of the Board of Directors of the Community Health Centers of King County, appeared in the King County Journal today.

Shields tells readers about a recent vote by Representative Reichert: "Congress is currently debating legislation allowing states to reduce patient benefit levels and impose increased cost-sharing, including deductibles and premiums on Medicaid beneficiaries. The House version of the bill threatens health care access for our most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, Congressman Dave Reichert's support for the bill allowed its passage by the narrowest possible margin, 217-215."

This behavior is in line with a pattern that characterizes Reichert's votes overall. He appears to find ways to portray himself as supportive of the moderate values important to his constituents in the 8th Congressional District -- but then he votes against these values on key bills in order to advance immoderate Republican values. Typically, he and other Republicans then scramble to provide cover for these apparent contradictions.

Reichert's vote, right before Memorial day, against health insurance coverage for members of the National Guard and Reserve is a case in point. Reichert was one of 12 Republicans opposing a motion to H.R. 1815 that would have expanded the TRICARE insurance program to National Guard members and Reservists. He didn't report this negative vote on his home page. But he did announce, on May 26, just about the same time, his positive vote on H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. This piece, entitled Reichert votes to improve lives of armed forces contains the following statement: “It is critical that we send a strong message to our men and women in uniform that we support them. Today’s legislation will help to improve their quality of life ... This Memorial Day I will spend the holiday overseas with our troops in Iraq. It is only fitting that while these soldiers are working so hard to defend our country we do all we can for them here in Congress.”

The 8th CD, where Reichert serves, is a swing district, known for favoring "moderate" candidates. Reichert's predecessor, Republican Jennifer Dunn, was famous for portraying herself as a moderate on the environment and reproductive choice, though I've heard that she too tended to vote with the Republican majority on these issues. This seat is one of the keys to holding a Republican majority in the House in 2006 and Reichert, as a a first-termer, is especially vulnerable. Progressives and conservatives alike have given it strategic attention. MoveOn has assigned one of its 10 or so full-time organizers to this district. And it is becoming increasingly clear that Reichert's Republican friends are assiduously protecting his reputation as a moderate in order to protect his -- and their -- 2006 chances.

Back in October, Alicia Mundy of the Seattle PI wrote an incisive article on Reichert's apparent use of this strategy in the Seattle PI.

Takings initiative -- A make-or-break issue for quality of life in Washington

This Monday the Washington Farm Bureau announced a land rights initiative for the fall, 2006 ballot. The measure will likely include a requirement for financial compensation to individual landowners for governmental “takings” of – or environmental restrictions on – the use of private property. Oregon recently passed a similar measure, which was struck down by the court as unconstitutional.

Land rights on '06 ballot: Days after election, Farm Bureau launches initiative drive for next vote

Farm Bureau initiative seeks compensation for landowners

Such a law could moot out a good potion of our laws that regulate development and protect the environment. Land use restrictions under the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and laws protecting agricultural lands could be rendered unenforceable. Considered by environmentalists as a ‘make-or-break’ issue for the state, this initiative also gets to the heart of what is at stake in many of our current civic challenges – from electoral reform to tax justice. That is the double-edged question: to what extent does the public wield power over its own destiny through government -- and, conversely, to what extent does it relinquish that power to private interests that are not accountable?

The takings initiative holds out hope for small and mid-sized land owners, particularly in rural and agricultural areas, who are facing increasing challenges to their economic power and autonomy. Hobbling the power of representative government to regulate land use is unlikely to resolve these challenges. It is, however, likely to transfer even more political and economic power to large developers who are accountable to the community only as far as citizens grant their government the power to make them accountable. Between 1997 and 2000, Washington lost 10% of its farms – much of it due to land development. A takings initiative would speed up development – take it further out of the realm of community control.

It can be difficult to understand how so many people anticipate a massive power transfer from representative government to private interests to hold out promise for them. Even so, it was not a surprise to me to hear that WFB representatives received an enthusiastic standing ovation from farmers at a recent agricultural meeting where the initiative was discussed last week. We are undergoing momentous economic, demographic, and land use changes in Washington state. Our public finance system is dysfunctional. People and businesses are feeling the squeeze and turn to professional organizations such as WFB (and, in the case of I-330, Washington Medical Association), to lead the way. These organizations appear to be lead their members into actions that benefit huge corporate interests.

Moving beyond perpetual tax revolt and property rights outrage
As much as this move by WFB appears to pose a serious public threat, it may also prove to be a golden opportunity. It comes at a “teachable moment” – against the backdrop of our seemingly endless tax revolt mentality here in Washington and after the recent breakthrough victory on I-912. It’s past time to find ways to address tax and land use issues that have been impeding progress for decades. How can we engage in this issue so that the net result is to enhance rather than diminish understanding among those who share much common ground? How can we emerge from this better equipped to collaborate on resolving longstanding challenges in our state?

An educational approach -- and new electoral organizing techniques such as Permanent Defense employed in its recent effort against I-912, are needed to help raise the public dialogue to a higher level and break through the reactionary cycle that has us stuck in self-defeating tax and land-use battles. Recent advances in coalition building among various sectors such as labor, environmental, and religious groups also hold promise.

Education and real communication is needed, not just on the pernicious consequences that this law may hold in store for us, but also on opportunities that can move us past old conflicts into progress. New technologies in sustainable development -- for example in the realm of energy -- even under-utilized as they now are -- are already benefitting agricultural land owners. American Farmland Trust's U.S. farm policy reform initiative recognizes that current developments -- for example, in global trade and increased public access to information on agricultural subsidies -- have created an "unprecedented opportunity for U.S. farm policy reform to benefit farmers, ranchers, consumers and taxpayers." Advances in economic research – for example a new study on the “multiplier effect” of money spent locally in the food industry that kicked off last night in Seattle, are also providing new tools. Regional efforts to prepare for the impacts of climate change also provide opportunities for change that can benefit all players.

Economic, land use, environmental, social, and demographic changes cannot be stopped. If we stay fixated on old battles that emphasize the rights of the individual in isolation from the interdependent needs of the community as a whole, we will lose new opportunities and continue to narrow, rather than expand our options.

John Kenneth Galbraith warned about the dangers of "public squalor amidst private affluence" when the private sector is unwilling to invest in the public good -- and the public sector fails to step in. This month's issue of Scientific American, in an article entitled, "Sick of Poverty," invokes this phrase, warning of the increasing wealth gap in the United States that is causing massive public health costs and individual suffering. We have, here in Washington, one of our nation's largest gaps between the rich and middle classes. And we have a long history of battles over public investment in public goods such as education, transportation, and environmental protections. Our unfair tax system, one of the most regressive in the nation, helps to fuel this dysfunction. My hope for Washington is an increase in public awareness that can move us in a better direction. Perhaps we are in a position to make such progress now.

Eat the State! Can't taste South King County

A pre-election endorsement article in Eat the State! (ETS!) ignored the King County Council races south of Seattle. Martha Koester took them to task. ETS! published her letter (after the election was over). But the title they assigned, We missed the suburbs, further illustrated how little ETS! understands this area.

SKC includes numerous cities. Kent, Auburn, and Federal Way are among the largest cities in Washington State. Kent, whose population doubled between 1992 and 2003, is on its way to being the fourth largest city in the state ... and includes the USA's third largest industrial area. We are undergoing tremendous population and demographic changes here in SKC -- and they have profound impact on Washington's electoral politics.

Seattle and eastside voters may be that 800 pound Democratic gorilla that makes for a progressive King County -- and a progressive Washington. But these voters don’t do it alone. Our election outcomes depend on voter decisions made throughout the state. Swing-district SKC is a crucial electoral hot spot.

Another dirty trick -- this one by Washington Medical Association

In searching for information to follow up on the previous Washblog post on the GOP disenfranchisement of voters, I find this:

Washington State Medical Association is the organization behind I-330, the initiative that would permit healthcare providers to force patients to relinquish their consititutional right to a jury trial. It has paid for a KOMO News 5robo call in which voters are urged to support I-330. The speaker identifies himself as a member of the AARP, giving the impression that the AARP supports I-330.

But, as the WMA well knows, the AARP has come out very strongly against I-330. It has asked for this ad to be stopped. Too late, the Washington Medical Association says.. too late -- we've already made all our calls.

I spoke with Jason Sykes, the public relations person for I-330 over at WSMA: 800-552-0612. His defense: the speaker did not say he was officially representing AARP, only that he was a member.

More on Political Yard Signs

Yes - I know that I have a weird fetish for all things yard sign, but I just had to share more dirty yard sign political tricks I've seen in the last couple of days.

All of these examples were found Tuesday night (11/1), right around the Admiral exit from the West Seattle Bridge.

This first example I have seen throughout Seattle - apparently the "Yes on 330/No on 336" campaign has some not-so-scrupulous volunteers:

Or maybe they're just stupid?

This final picture just makes me sad.  What did these poor yard signs ever do to deserve such a fate?

I-912 Donors: Washington State Media

Go to Washington's Public Disclosure Commission's page, click on "2005 Tracked Races", scroll down and click on "Detailed Contributions to 2005 Statewide Initiative Committees", choose the Yes on 912 entry,  and then do a browser search for King County Journal and South County Journal. You'll find that this paper donated a total of $2,250. The Columbian donated $1,600.

You'll also see Tri-City Herald, Spokesman Review, Olympian Newspaper, The Everett Herald, the Kitsap Sun, the Yakima Herald, the Tacoma News Tribune, KJR-AM, KUOW, KXLY Radio.... and on and on...

Wazzup?!