2009 General Election Recommendations

State of Washington:

Initiative 1033 – Tim Eyman’s measure to limit property taxes. This is a basic “starve the beast” initiative. The theory is limiting government income will control government spending and excess regulation. While that may be true and I’d love to send a message to our Democrat controlled legislature and city and county councils, I have to agree with Chris Vance (former State Legislator, King County Councilmember and State Republican Chair) when he says, “As a fiscal conservative, therefore, I hope I can say this with some credibility: King County really does have a revenue problem. In fact, it is closer to a revenue crisis.” The Eyman initiative will only exacerbate the problem and in the end not be effective because the Legislature can repeal or revise the initiative (by two-thirds vote in first two years, majority vote after that). One can bet the farm that regardless of which party controls Olympia, if passed, 1033 will be gutted by 2012. Worse, it will serve as one more reason to impose an income tax. A reluctant vote “No” on 1033.

Referendum 71 – The everything but marriage act (State Senate Bill 5688) was passed by the Legislature last session. A citizen signature drive placed the law on the 2009 ballot as Referendum 71. A good sumary of the law can be found on ballotpedia.org. A “Rejected” vote rejects the law. I am tempted to agree with my Liberterian friends that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to the religious groups. Unfortunately, laws affecting children, property ownership, health and retirement benefits, inheritance and a host of case law are based on the traditional one man, one woman definition of marriage. A few states have expanded marriage to include same sex couples while others have revised the laws regarding adoption, benefits etc. by passing so called “domestic partner” legislation. Senate Bill 5688 falls in the latter category just short of the Gay community goal of full marriage but it opens the door to all manner of law suits and legally forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Much of what is in Senate Bill 5688 is currently available to domestic partners. It comes too close to redefining marriage and threatens my right to hold a biblical view. What’s next, polygamy? However, I fully recognize there are strong differences of opinion. Many leading citizens of good will, including some in the religious community, approve of Ref. 71. I just plan to draw the line here and vote “Rejected”..

Also see Same Sex Marriage, Yea or Nay and A Sermon on Homosexuality

King County:

Executive – Dour Dow vs Sunny Susan. Anyone following the performance of King County – election debacles, cost overruns, mismangement, state audit reports, budget crisis – knows the County needs a major shakeup. It sure won’t get it by elevating a long time insider and narrow minded liberal from the Council to the Executive’s office. Only Susan Hutchison offers change and reform. Even the Seattle Times endorsed her. Vote for Hutchison for County Executive.

Sheriff – Incumbant Sue Rahr is unopposed.

Assessor – There was no primary due to the last minute resignation of the incumbant. Five people are running for the unexpired term of two years. Lloyd Hara has the government and management experience for the job. Vote for Hara.

County Council Districts 1 – Bob Ferguson, ,3 – Kathy Lambert and 5 – Julia Patterson are all unopposed. (Weren’t we told making the Council non-partisan would encourage more choice? Do you think the political parties would have let these incumbants go unchallenged?)

Reagan Dunn in District 9 has an opponent but Dunn is the clear choice for re-election.

Charter Amendments 1,2, and 3 – All appear to be house keeping. Vote yes.

Charter Amendment 4 makes it more difficult for the County to sell , alter or transfer certain open space land already owned by the County. Vote yes.

Court of Appeals Div 1, Dist 1 – Anne L. Ellington is unopposed.

Port of Seattle:

Position 1 – John Creighton is unopposed.

Position 3 – Rob Holland is the union, ACORN guy. David Doud has broad support across the political spectrum. Vote for Doud.

Position 4 – Tom Albro is widely endorsed and is past president of the Municiple League. His opponent is a former Democrat legislator backed by the unions. A clear choice, Vote for Tom Albro.

City of Seattle:

Proposition No. 1 – Low Income Housing Levy – The whole question of taxpayer funded housing aside, this measure replaces the expiring $86,000,000 low income housing levy with a $145,000,000 levy. Proponents say it will only cost “the typical Seattle homeowner $5.50 per month”. It’s the nickel and dime property tax increases, when added up, that price people out of there homes and apartments. Not in a recession. Vote “No”.

Mayor – This race makes one long for Mayor Corpulent Greg. People voted for Obama hoping against hope that he would govern from the center despite his past statements and association with radical leftist. Mike McGinn is similar. He expresses concern about the tunnel costs but his real agenda is anti automoble extremism. Joe Mallahan is at least a little more reasonable. Vote for Mallahan

City Attorney – The Seattle Times endorsed challenger Pete Holmes in part because of their battles with the city over disclosure of public records. They felt incumbent Tom Carr represented the city and not the people. However, the City Attorney is the city’s lawyer just like the State Attorney General represents the state. Carr got an “Outstanding” rating from the Municiple League and besides, the cops endorsed him. Vote for Tom Carr.

City Council:

Position 2 – Incumbent Richard Conlin is one of the liberals on the Council but then so are the rest of them. There is nothing to be gained by replacing him with Dave Ginsberg thus losing Conlin’s experience. Vote for Conlin.

Position 4 – An open seat sought by David Bloom and Sally Bagshaw. Looking at her endorsements in the Voter’s Pamphlet, she appears a shade or two less less left of center than Bloom and besides, the cops endorsed her. Vote for Bagshaw.

Position 6 – Stick with Nick or Jump to Jessie? Our experience with young women elected to the Council (Judy Nicastro, Heidi Wills) has been less than sterling but Nick Licata has been in office since 1998 and Jessie Israel makes a strong case for change. Besides, the cops endorsed her. Vote for Israel.

Position 8 – Perhaps the most important City Council race in years. A McGinn clone on cars (he proposes tolling selected city streets to discourage automobiles), Mike O’Brien is opposed by Robert Rosencrantz, a common sense (at least by Seattle standards) candidate that would bring some degree of idelogical balance to the City Council. Clear choice, Vote for Rosencrantz.

Seattle School Board

Director District 1 – Incumbant Michael DeBell is unopposed.

Director District 5 – Kay Smith-Blum is the clear choice over the ineffective incumbant, famous for voting “no”, Mary Bass. Vote for Smith-Blum.

Director District 7 – The School Board could use the perspective of a scientist. Vote for Wilson Chin.

Seattle Mayoral Candidates Debate

On September 10th, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce hosted a debate between the two candidates for Mayor of Seattle, Joe Mallahan and Mike McGinn. There were about 375 people in attendance and it was streamed on the net and shown on the Seattle Channel but beyond that, I suspect very few voters took the opportunity to watch it. Fortunately, it is still on the web. The whole debate lasts one hour and seventeen minutes including much too long introductory comments by the host and the moderator, which you can skip with no loss. Click here to view the debate.

On a question about jobs, both candidates seemed to say jobs are created by business but Seattle government should provide a competitive advantage that both supports current business and attracts new companies. McGinn talked about a city that works by fostering affordable housing, great (mass) transportation, great schools and investing in the future (fiber optic cable). Mallahan wants to move Seattle forward by creating an effective transportation system, good quality of life (public safety), efficient and effective management so we’d have the funds to pursue Seattle’s “progressive values” of “social justice and environmental stewardship.” They both supported developer-community agreements prior to launching a project to avoid contentious disputes but both also hinted that they favored a requirement for developers to use union labor as part of such agreements. McGinn favored a city takeover of schools. Mallahan felt the city had enough to do without adding responsibility for the school system They spared over the tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct with McGinn calling it a $930 billion dollar “tax increase” with the city being responsible for the inevitable cost overrun. Mallahan called McGinn’s opposition to the tunnel “disingenuous” saying we have spent eight years coming to stakeholder agreement on the tunnel solution and we need to get started for safety reasons as well as transportation improvement.

If all I had to go on was this debate, I’d say be prepared for His Honor Michael McGinn. If Joe Mallahan wants the “His Honor” title, he needs to quickly hone and sharpen his talking points, clearly define his differences with McGinn and demonstrate he understands the issues in depth.

Write-in for Seattle Mayor

It seems that the 38.45 percent of the electorate that bothered to cast a vote in the Seattle Mayor’s race just didn’t choose wisely. Voters were so fixated on which of the seven candidates would be selected to oppose Mayor Greg Nickels in the General Election that Nickels failed to make the Primary cut. A minor panic has resulted. Unions (public employee and construction) and businesses with close ties to Nickels (Paul Allen’s Vulcan) are rumored to be polling the chances for State Senator Ed Murray as a write-in candidate for mayor. Seattle Times columnist Joni Balter lent her support for Murray in an August 26th piece – “Sen. Ed Murray for mayor? Let’s hope so for Seattle’s sake”. Her thesis is that neither Mike McGinn nor Joe Mallahan has enough political experience or inside knowledge of how government operates to hit the road running. After all, Nickels had worked for then City Councilmember Norm Rice and spent “many years on the County Council” before winning his first of two terms as Mayor. She worries “about the somewhat scary prospect of a novice running City Hall.” Another concern is the City Council would fill a power vacuum resulting from a weak mayor. I wonder if she has similar concerns at the national level but I don’t want to bring up consistency just now.

Among Murray’s qualifications according to Balter are he’s a “Democrat”, helped “secure two gas tax increases” and he’s a “crusader for gay and lesbian rights.” That’s enough to make any Seattle liberal swoon. But you pretty much get all that with either a
Joe Mallahan or Mike McGinn but at least in the case of Mallahan, some real, live private business experience too. Seattle could use a dose of that. I didn’t support either of them in the Primary but of the two finalists, Mallahan is clearly the better choice. The problem with a Murray write-in is that it may well siphon enough votes away from Mallahan to give McGinn the winning plurality. McGinn is blindly anti roads and wants to reopen the Viaduct/tunnel wounds, positions that will ensure nothing gets done until “The Big One” drops the Viaduct in a heap of rubble along the waterfront. He supports the City taking over the Seattle Public Schools. The Seattle City Council already acts as an amateur utilities commission, adding the school system to their plate makes little sense.

We had a primary election. The voters chose Mallahan, in the face of a negative campaign by the unions against him, and McGinn to advance to the General Election. Pick one.

Parsing Dave Reichert

I agree with the President on some things. I don’t agree with the President on a lot of things.” Congressman Dave Reichert – November 6, 2006 CNN interview on support of President Bush.

Just under the surface, conservatives have had their concerns with Congressman Reichert but it erupted into the open when Reichert was one of only eight Republican House members to vote for the flawed 1,300 page, written on the fly, Cap and Trade bill. One well-known conservative Seattle talk radio host called his vote “a deal breaker.” The dreaded RINO (Republican In Name Only) label was applied but is that fair? To judge him on his support for President George W. Bush, not fair, but on his stands on issues is fair.

Comparing Reichert’s ratings by eleven special interest groups to those of Steny Hoyer, House Democrat Majority Leader, on the Left and John Boehner, House Republican Minority Leader, on the Right, Reichert lands in the moderate center.

Source data web sites for each of these organizations are listed in pdf format at the below site:

Reichertrating031

Looking at his sponsorship of legislation, he is a moderate Republican. Most of his major campaign contributions come from traditional Republican sources.

Bottom line, Dave Reichert is a centrist Republican not likely to bolt the Party, particularly with Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair. Equally unlikely would be a successful Primary challenge from conservatives. Parts of Reichert’s 8th Congressional District include once solid Republican state legislative districts east of Lake Washington. Once because they are now firmly in the D camp meaning there is no strong conservative base upon which to build a campaign. Reagan Dunn, a popular King County Council member and son of the late Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, Dave Reichert’s predecessor, might be able to parlay his council district base (largely outside the 8th Congressional District, however) and his famous name into a credible challenge but at the high risk of ultimately losing the seat to the Democrats. Additionally, with a new baby in the house, he may not relish a yearlong, no doubt, contentious campaign. Congressman Reichert plays well in his swing district. He has been elected three times by increasing margins. Next year should be a good year for Republicans. Bottom line, go with Dave in the 8th and concentrate on defeating Democrats like 3rd District Congressman Brian Baird.

Housing Bubble Deja Vu

Glancing at the August 1, 2009 Seattle Times’ New Homes advertising section, I noticed an article (remember, this is advertising) offering; “zero-down financing” on some town homes in Issaquah. Curiosity peeked; I read the story, which included the following quote:

“This offer is truly spectacular,” says Jeff Smallwood, vice president of sales and marketing for Intracorp, Centerra’s developer. “We’re offering zero-down financing with no mortgage insurance, including a 4.123 percent (interest rate) on a 30 year fixed loan, 3.25 percent on a seven-year ARM or 2.875 percent on a five-year ARM interest-only loan. So potentially, you could purchase a home at Centerra for $329,990 and your monthly payments could be as low as $791 (excluding taxes and HOA dues).”

I immediately double-checked the date. No, it wasn’t August 1, 2007 or even 2008 but the words certainly sounded familiar. Nothing was said about qualifying for these loans and hopefully the standards are higher than before the bubble but come on, $791 a month for a $330,000 house! Is the real estate/mortgage industry about to sucker in a new generation of gullible homebuyers? Are they laying the groundwork for Bailout II? Sure, the pressure is on to unload the large volume of unsold homes and every sales ploy in the book is being used, but really, has the burst housing bubble taught us nothing?

Frying pan – Hutchison – Fire

King County Executive candidate Susan Hutchison’s media career with KIRO TV ended on a sour note. When she was replaced in 2002 as anchor of the evening news, she filed a discrimination suit. After a three year battle, the suit was settled and the records sealed. Hutchinson signed a confidentiality agreement. The Seattle Times, in a July 16, 2009 editorial, demanded that she release the records of the case and filed suit to enforce their view.

This is the kind of political fodder opponents love to wallow in. She refuses to open the files and the question is “What is she hiding?” The speculators will have an innuendo field day. Agree to make the files public and the “next questioners”, “second guessers” and “Monday morning quarterbacks” come out to play. There are not enough words in the dictionary to explain to everyone’s satisfaction the reasons behind any confidential settlement especially in the few short months of a political campaign. Just look at the conspiracy theories that pop up after any news event.

Ahead in the polls, Hutchison will face one of the four elected politicians in November. Of course, he will ask that the issue of her lawsuit not be used in the campaign. Take the high road knowing full well that the media old and new will carry the mud.

McKenna’s Plans for the Future

I, and I’m sure everyone else on his mailing list, received the below e-mail from Rob McKenna. Should Patty Murray be concerned? She has faithfully towed the Democrat Party line since entering the U.S. Senate over 16 years ago. It has earned her leadership positions and pork power for Washington State. But will this be enough to win a fourth term in 2010? Will her obsequious support for everything Obama – stimulus spending, cap & trade, government health care, economic policy etc. – haunt her should Obama fail to gain public approval for his lurch to the Left? McKenna, up for reelection in 2012, has a free ride should Patty prove vulnerable in 2010. Even if he challenged her and lost, he’d be the leading candidate for Governor in 2012. Should he win, Washington State would have one of the smartest members of the what has been called the most exclusive club in the world, the U.S. Senate. That would be the “Change We Need.”

clearfogblog

Dear Friend,

I am writing today to thank you again for your continued support and confidence. Thanks to you, the past year has proven to be very successful both in the Attorney General’s office and in my political life. Last year, running on my record of reducing the scourge of methamphetamines in our communities and protecting vulnerable populations from identity theft,

· I was re-elected by a margin of nearly 20%.

· I was proud to receive the largest number of votes of any Republican candidate for any office in Washington State
history.

· I won 58% of the vote in Pierce County – my opponent’s home county.

· I won 54% of the vote in King County.

· I won 61% of the vote in Snohomish County.

· I received a larger percentage of the vote statewide than President Barack Obama and came within 60,000 votes
of his total vote count, even though turnout for the presidential race was considerably higher.

Since returning to the Attorney General’s Office, I have spent considerable time visiting cities and towns across the state in order to stay connected with the needs of individuals, families and their communities. In the next year I will,

. Return to every county at least once.

· Meet with grassroots leaders to help them achieve their goals, particularly in legislative candidate recruitment and
support.

· Expand my social networking capabilities to improve that efficiency and quality of my communication with all of our
state’s citizens.

· Share our vision for Washington State with current and new supporters.

In order to achieve these goals, I ask for your help once again. Please log onto www.robmckenna.org and make a contribution today. Alternatively, you may send your contribution to PO Box 955, Mercer Island, WA 98040-0955.
Thank you again for your continued support. I look forward to seeing you soon in your hometown! In the meantime, stay in touch by logging onto my Facebook page at www.facebook.com/robmckennadotorg . Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Rob McKenna

Say What, Susan?

The race for King County Executive is non-partisan but let’s face it, of the five leading candidates, four are Democrat elected officials and one is generally considered to lean Republican. What a surprise then to read in a Sunday, July 12th Seattle Times editorial that the four Democrats oppose interim King County Executive Kurt Triplett’s proposed sales tax increase but the lone Republican “wants to study the Triplett proposal before saying how she feels about it.” Reading the editorial description of each of the four Democrat’s responses to the tax proposal, especially the two state legislators, they seem well thought out and responsible. But Susan Hutchison was responsible only in that she actually wanted to read the proposal before commenting. This is one time when reading may not be necessary. Offering a tax hike during an economic recession should be a non-starter. Oddly, I’ve heard Susan speak on two occasions and both times she made it perfectly clear that this is not the time for tax increases. She has ideas for reducing the cost of King County government, starting with the size of the Executive and Council staffs, while funding critical needs. But none of this was mentioned in the Times editorial. It could be a too quick response to a reporter’s question, poor editorial research or, and I slip into conspiracy theory politics here, the Times is laying the groundwork for trashing Hutchison on the way to endorsing two Democrats for County Executive.

Carbon Tax

In a June 30, 2009 Seattle Times opinion piece, Seattle economist Bruce Flory and Todd Myers from the Washington Policy Council proposed replacing the state property tax with a carbon tax. Such a tax would reduce the use of carbon-based fuels by making them more expensive. Leaving aside the controversy over climate change, benefits would include cleaner air, reduced reliance on imported petroleum products and it avoids the fraud prone Cap and Trade system. Additionally, in theory at least, the carbon tax would be revenue neutral to the government.

But nothing is ever perfect especially when it comes to taxes. A carbon tax is straight- forward and more transparent than Cap and Trade but less so than a property tax. Yes, thirty cents a gallon gas tax increase and elimination of the state portion of property tax is clear but things get a little murky when it comes to the costs of other carbon using products and services. How much will the price of airline tickets, Fed Ex deliveries, utility bills and plastic products rise as business passes on the effect of a new tax? Taxes affect economic behavior. Buy gas in Oregon, less flights requiring in state refueling, businesses locating out of state are all possible unintended consequences. A carbon tax reminds one of sin taxes. Government spends money discouraging smoking while at the same time increasing dependence on tobacco tax revenue.

Saving the environment and energy independence are goals of the war on carbon. It seeks to force development of alterative energy sources by making carbon energy prohibitively expensive. Unfortunately, new kinds energy could be years away and potentially costly. Electric cars will stress electricity supply. Replacing gasoline with hydrogen would require a huge infrastructure investment. Will a massive new tax move research and development forward faster or just provide another pot of gold for legislatures to slowly siphon off to other pet projects?

Tobacco Regulation and Taxes

President Obama will sign the new law regulating tobacco products. If successful, the long-term effect will be a dramatic reduction in cigarette smoking. This is good news for those with health, air pollution and litter concerns. But, and there is always a “but”, the minuses, almost all economic, are significant. Tobacco farmers, manufacturing, distribution and sales workers will all lose their livelihood. Government, especially the states, will drop mega bucks in tobacco tax revenue, almost $15 billion in 2006 for the states.

Not a problem for the Feds, they’ll just print or borrow money to fill the gap. States, however, which generally must balance their budgets, will have to pass new taxes or reduce spending (unlikely) to make up for lost tobacco taxes. Since sin taxes on booze and gambling are already high, don’t be surprised if legalizing and taxing recreational drugs like marijuana is proposed as a tobacco tax replacement. Libertarians and anti War on Drugs folks would be supportive. Liberal politicians would like it. A zoned out populace would be more malleable in the hands of the Nanny State. Winners all around, yes indeed, don’t be surprised.