Monthly Archives: August 2010

Republicans Blowing Smoke on Economy According to Newsweek

Posted on August 31st, 2010 | Comments Off on Republicans Blowing Smoke on Economy According to Newsweek

In an article in Newsweek’s The Gaggle on Press, Politics and Absurdity, Arthur Romano details how the Republican agenda for the economy doesn’t hold up when examined. The article is entitled “Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge”. Romano examines and calculates the figures based on stated Republican positions and actions they have proposed.

The article notes:

As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a “major economic address” on Tuesday, President Obama is “doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created” while refusing to do anything at all “about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy.” Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There’s only one problem with Boehner’s message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won’t actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

It is good to finally see some response from the media to questioning the absurd pronouncements and posturing by Republicans beyond merely quoting their phony claims. Anyone can repeat the nonsense that many Republicans and Tea Party fanatics have been spouting. It’s something else to actually look beyond the heated rhetoric and rantings of the right wing and analyze what putting these folks and their friends back in power would actually mean.

As just one example of why people should read the Newsweek article to understand just how ridiculous the Republican claims are, let’s look at the claim that extending the Bush Tax cuts for the very wealthy will help small business create more jobs.

As Newsweek notes:

“…it’s unlikely that extending the cuts for the richest Americans would have much of an effect on small-business hiring, which is a claim that Republicans make with some regularity. Why? Because of the taxpayers that report running small businesses on their taxes, only 2 percent fall into the top two income brackets.* The other 98 percent of small-business owners make less than $250,000 a year and wouldn’t pay higher taxes under Obama’s plan.

History isn’t on the GOP’s side, either. If keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35 percent—the rate under Bush, and the rate that Republicans are fighting to preserve—spurs so much hiring, why didn’t America experience any job growth at all during Bush’s time in office? And if a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent—the rate under Bill Clinton, and the rate that Democrats are fighting to restore—is such a job killer, why did payrolls grow by 20 percent during the 1990s?”

I urge you to read the article to get more details and understand better why the Republican economic
rantings are just a lot of smoke obscuring the reality that things would be worse off, not better if Republicans gain control of either House of Congress.  If you thought we had gridlock and weren’t getting enough done now, expect nothing to get done if Republicans get back control of either house.

Comments Off on Republicans Blowing Smoke on Economy According to Newsweek

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Economy, Republicans

Tagged , , , , ,

Conservatives Plan to Spend Mega Millions to Win Congressional Lottery

Posted on August 28th, 2010 | Comments Off on Conservatives Plan to Spend Mega Millions to Win Congressional Lottery

Conservatives are betting heavily that they can bring back their nefarious philosophy of corporate control of America by spending mega millions of dollars this year to convince conservatives and independents to get out and vote for right wing candidates to help takeover the US House and Senate. Think Progress reports that right wing spending for the November Election will drastically rise to around $400 million.

Under such well known previous players like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association are also all American sounding names like Americans for Job Security and Americans for Prosperity.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision and Tea Party fanaticism and continuing libertarian ideals and free market advocates are all contributing factors stirring up a whirlwind of right wing dollars. Also contributing and giving these fanatics hope are polls that suggest the waning of the  idealism and fervor of new voters and others that helped to elect Obama and put Democrats in control over the last several national elections. They are hoping these Democrats and independents don’t make the effort to vote this year.

All I can say is WAKE UP to those that thought electing Obama was the end of the need to fight for the future. Wake Up to the reality that what we won is in danger of being lost.  Wake up to the realization that despite all the problems inherited from Bush and the Republicans that much progress has been made for a better future.  Maybe its not all you wanted but it is a hell of a lot considering where we were.

I say to those not yet energized to vote this year  – Are you willing to just roll over and play dead and ignore the damage to our future that this right wing fanaticism and greed will bring to us all? I hope not. I urge you to get engaged in this year’s elections and help battle off the attempt by the right wing to bring back the Bush/Cheney/Rove corporate greed machine that puts profit over people lives and dreams and hopes for a better future.

This election year is too important to sit out! Vote and urge your family and friends to vote. Give money to candidates you support and volunteer for their campaigns.

To give an idea of the magnitude and scope of the spending by conservatives here is the list of right wing groups and their proposed spending as tabulated by Think Progress. Do you really want these folks back in charge?

– Chamber of Commerce has pledged to spend $75 million

– American Crossroads has pledged to spend $52 million

– Americans for Prosperity has pledged to spend $45 million

– Republican State Leadership Committee has pledged to spend $40 million

– American Action Network has pledged to spend $25 million

– American Future Fund has pledged to spend up to $25 million

– Club for Growth has pledged to spend at least $24 million

– National Republican Trust PAC has pledged to spend at least $20 million

– An unnamed health insurance industry coalition has pledged to spend $20 million

– National Rifle Association has pledged to spend $20 million

– Faith and Freedom Coalition has pledged to spend $11 million

– FreedomWorks has pledged to spend $10 million

– Americans for Job Security has pledged to spend $10 million

– Susan B. Anthony List has pledged to spend $6 million

– Our Country Deserves Better (Tea Party Express) has already spent $5 million

– Tax Relief Coalition has already spent $4 million

– Republican Majority Campaign has pledged to spend $3 million

– Campaign for Working Families has pledged to spend $2 million

– Heritage Action for America has pledged to spend $1 million

– Financial Services Roundtable has already spent $0.5 million

– Family Research Council has raised $0.5 million

– Citizens United Political Victory Fund has pledged to spend $0.2 million

TOTAL: $399.2 million

Comments Off on Conservatives Plan to Spend Mega Millions to Win Congressional Lottery

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Elections, Republicans

Tagged , , ,

Supermajority Vote Requirement for Washington State Legislators as Proposed by I-1053 is Unconstitutional

Posted on August 25th, 2010 | 2 comments

This issue should have been decided long ago by the Washington State Supreme Court. Any attempt to limit the Washington State Legislature from enacting revenue bills or repealing non-performing tax exemptions by requiring a supermajority vote is unconstitutional. Initiative 1053 is unconstitutional and should be rejected by voters this November.

The Washington State Constitution is very clear on this issue.

Article II, Section 22 states:

“PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

It does not state that more than a majority vote can be required. Initiative 1053 tries to change that by requiring Legislators to act by a 2/3 supermajority vote in both Houses to enact revenue measures or repeal tax exemptions. It happens to be revenue in this case but it could just as easy be environmental protections or labor issues or race issues or women’s issues or any other issue.

The fact of the matter is that anything more than 50% to pass a bill would give Legislators on one side of the issue more power than the other side in determining the outcome of a vote.  Requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a measure means that the vote of 1/3 of the Legislators can prevail over the vote of 2/3 of the Legislators.

A majority vote gives both sides on a issue equal voting power  to pass or reject legislation. Everyone’s vote has equal weight. It’s the basic concept of one person/one vote. But a 2/3 vote requirement for Legislators to pass something means that 1/3 of the Legislators can prevent passage;  in essence giving the vote of those opposed to a measure  twice the weight of someone voting for the measure.

This sets up a two tiered system of weighted votes, something that is not in the State Constitution for passing legislation.  It distorts the process of representational government. Initiative 1053 tries to change the Washington State Constitution by saying that in some cases your elected Senator or Representative will represent you with one full vote to decide an issue but in cases involving raising revenue or repealing non-performing tax exemptions, they will essentially only have the equivalent of half a vote to decide the issue if they vote yes. If they vote no their vote will represent a full vote.

This is the flaw in supermajority votes. Under a 2/3 majority vote requirement to pass some issues, it sets up a system that essentially assigns Legislators the equivalent of half a vote if they vote yes or a full vote if they vote no on certain issues.

While I-1053 would require supermajority votes for deciding to raise revenue or repeal non-performing tax exemptions, it only requires a simple majority to pass itself. It does not require a 2/3 vote.

Washington voters are certainly not overwhelmed by this proposal based on past voting. In the one instance in which it was mentioned specifically in the ballot title, it just barely passed. That was Initiative 960 in 2007. It only received a 51.24% yes vote. That is nowhere near the 2/3 voting requirement it is asking the State Legislature to operate under.

In 1993, the 2/3 vote requirement was an issue in Initiative 601, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the ballot title.  It also just barely passed with a 51.21 % yes vote.

Eyman mentions this measure passing 3 times which is misrepresenting the issue. In 1998 voters passed Referendum 49. It’s subject dealt with motor vehicle excise taxes, bonds for highways and spending limits. Nowhere was a 2/3 vote requirement mentioned in the ballot title or official arguments for the voters pamphlet by supporters and opponents as referenced by the League of Women Voters.

These attempts to negate the concept of 1 person/1 vote for Legislators voting are unconstitutional. They are attempts to assign different voting powers to different Legislators depending on whether they vote for or against a particular measure. The Washington State Constitution does not allow the ability to weight votes for bills depending on the subject.

Article I, Section 29 states:

CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

The State Constitution does not set up the power to weight votes depending on a Legislator’s position on a bill.

The issue of revenue/taxes is specifically addressed in another part of the Washington State Constitution.

Article VII, Section 1 states:

TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away.

Initiative 1053 is obviously an attempt to take away the Legislator’s authority to raise revenue or taxes to support public services. The only way this can be altered is by a constitutional amendment.

An initiative or legislative bill can not amend the state constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment. Because constitutional amendments affect the basic framework of how our government works, it is a specific instance where the state constitution spells out a requirement for a 2/3 vote by the Legislature and a majority vote of the people to pass. Two other instances spelled out for 2/3 votes by the Legislature are to expel a member of the house and a 2/3 vote in the first 2 years to amend an initiative.

No where does the Washington State Constitution say that voters can by a simple majority vote on an initiative, limit the power of Legislators to pass revenue legislation or repeal under-performing tax exemptions  by requiring supermajority votes. Under Article I, Section 29 to do so would require express words and no such words exist in the Constitution.

Initiative 1053 should be rejected by voters this November. It is unconstitutional. Uphold our Constitution by voting No on 1053 this November 2nd!

2 Comments

Posted in Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

McGinn Administration Proposes Eliminating Protections for Most Trees

Posted on August 17th, 2010 | Comments Off on McGinn Administration Proposes Eliminating Protections for Most Trees

Maybe it’s time to check if Seattle Mayor Michael McGinn is still carrying his Sierra Club Card. His Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has issued a controversial draft proposal, entitled City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations Dated July 14, 2010.

Unfortunately the proposal represents a complete reversal of recent tree protection legislation passed by the Seattle City Council and signed by McGinn’s predecessor, Mayor Greg Nickels. The proposal calls for ending all protection for mature trees in Seattle. It would rescind Director’s Rules 16-2008 which protects exceptional trees in Seattle.

It would also repeal the interim tree ordinance passed last year by the City Council which among other things protected tree groves and limited the number of trees which could be cut down in any given year. DPD’s proposal runs counter to Resolution 31138, passed by the Seattle City Council last year calling for strengthening trees protections, not weakening them. And it ignores most of the problems identified by the City Auditor in 2009 entitled “Management of City’s Trees Can be Improved.”

Seattle’s urban forest and trees comprise an important component of Seattle’s green infrastructure. Our urban forest reduces costs to taxpayers by reducing storm water runoff and cleaning pollutants from the air we breathe. It provides habitat for wildlife, screens noise and reduces weather impacts. Seattle’s urban forest has been in decline in recent decades, losing canopy and mature trees.

The report was prepared in secret without a public process and is being marketed by DPD as the best way to increase our urban forest canopy. Comments will be accepted until Oct 31, 2010. The report proposes that instead of regulation, the city rely on education and incentives to protect trees. Unfortunately there are no good examples of places where this approach has worked.

Other cities are strengthening their tree regulations rather than proposing eliminating them. Seattle’s Urban Forestry Commission has reviewed the preliminary draft report and does not support the approach being proposed by DPD. They note that the proposed DPD framework would eliminate protections for trees on 99.5% of Seattle’s property and only apply to the .5% of property being developed each year. Once a building site is complete, there would be no ongoing protections for trees under DPD’s proposal.

DPD is presenting their draft proposal to the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee of the Seattle City Council this afternoon, August 17, 2010 from 2 PM to 4 PM. The Urban Forestry Commission will also be discussing at this meeting their problems with the proposal. They have prepared a written response to DPD’s proposal.

Neighborhood and environmental activists across the City are outraged by the proposal. They held a public meeting at the Broadview Library on August 8, 2010 and decided to organize a Coalition effort to draft a citizen’s alternative to DPD’s proposal. The consensus of the meeting was that the DPD proposal was so extreme and contrary to public opinion and went in the opposite direction from that which other cities are moving; that DPD could not be trusted to prepare a forward looking and comprehensive proposal that addressed the need of the city to protect and expand our our urban forest and trees.

The organizations and community representatives meeting decided to consolidate and focus their efforts to enact a strong urban forestry ordinance under one umbrella group. The group agreed to organize under the auspices of Save the Trees-Seattle which has been fighting to save the old trees at Ingraham High School for the last two and one half years. Save the Trees-Seattle also came up with the idea of Seattle having an Urban Forestry Commission based on science. The City Council created the Urban Forestry Commission last year and they have been meeting since January. Save the Trees – Seattle also worked to pass the interim tree ordinance enacted last year.

The new coaltion under the name Save the Trees – Seattle established a legislative committee which will be putting together a citizen’s draft ordinance. They will be seeking public input and welcome tree advocates and others from around the city to participate in the process. They will send their draft proposal to various groups and organizations around the city for review and will be speaking before interested organizations, seeking public feedback.

Coalition members of Save the Trees –Seattle have agreed on some preliminary proposals that they believe should be incorporated in any comprehensive urban forestry and tree ordinance. These include:

1. Maintain and expand protection for exceptional trees and tree groves

2. Expand current permit system for street trees to include all trees over 6 inches in diameter on public and private property; 2 week posting of permits on internet and visible sign on site, appeal process

3. Comprehensive regulations that cover both public and private sectors

4. Consolidate oversight, regulation and enforcement in an independent department other than DPD, that does not have a conflict of interest

5. License and train all arborists and tree cutting operations; with fines and suspension for violations of law

6. Give priority to native trees and vegetation to help preserve native plants and animals

7. Emphasis on habitat and ecological processes and soil as part of urban forestry

8. All real estate sales to require disclosure of exceptional trees on property or all trees requiring a permit to remove

9. Define canopy cover in terms of volume and area

10. Rebate on utility bills based on exceptional trees (or all trees over 6 inches in diameter) on property; property owners file to get rebate like they file for senior’s property tax exemption

11. Meaningful and descriptive site plans that show existing and proposed trees to scale.

The coalition will meet again on August 29, 2010 at the Broadview Public Library from 1:30 to 4:30 PM.

Comments Off on McGinn Administration Proposes Eliminating Protections for Most Trees

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Seattle’s DPD Proposes Eliminating Almost all Tree Protections

Posted on August 5th, 2010 | Comments Off on Seattle’s DPD Proposes Eliminating Almost all Tree Protections

The Seattle Departmant of Planning and Development (DPD) is proposing new tree regulations that would eliminate current protections for exceptional trees, tree groves and most other trees. The proposal was developed in secret without a public process. 

The draft proposal was prepared in response to last year’s City Council Resolution 31138 . The DPD proposal is inadequate and does not meet the pressing needs of preserving and enhancing Seattle urban forest and trees. It represents a significant step backwards in protecting this valuable infrastructure of our city.

It is important to note that the very first directive in Resolution 31138 in Section 1 is not met in several ways by DPD’s “City of Seattle Proposed Tree Regulations dated July 14, 2010. The resolution states that “The City Council requests that the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) submit legislation by May 2010 to establish a comprehensive set of regulations and incentives to limit the removal of trees and promote the retention and addition of trees within the City of Seattle on both private and public property, including city park land.”

The report does the opposite by proposing the repeal of the interim tree ordinance, removal of protections for exceptional trees and relying only on incentives to protect trees. 

DPD’s proposal is not legislation but only a report. In the introduction it states that “The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is proposing to revise Seattle’s regulations governing trees on private property.” The report completely ignores the public component of protecting the urban forest. If urban forest regulations are to be effective, public and private entities must follow the same regulations.

Resolution 31138 directed DPD to look at “establishing additional protections for all City-designated exceptional trees”. This seems pretty clear, yet DPD’s response is to propose eliminating any protections for exceptional trees. This would represent a major reversal and repudiation of the goals of protecting unique species, old trees and others currently classified as exceptional. This is unacceptable.

Another criticism of the report is that it approaches urban forestry protection only from the sense of trees, not urban forestry. It ignores the ecological component of the interrelationship of plants and animals and the need for habitat protection. The impact of individual tree decisions is never in isolation but affects communities of plants and animals and their ability to survive.

The interim tree ordinance gave protection to groves of trees; yet no mention is made of this in this report. Many species of birds, insects and other animal’s survival depends on the retention of native plant species, including but not limited to “trees”. It is well known that the diversity of plants and animals increases as habitat patch size increases. The proposal removes interim protection for tree groves.

Also the whole definition of canopy analysis is dated ecologically. Canopy needs to be defined in terms of canopy volume. In an aerial photo a 100 year old 120 foot tall Douglas fir could appear to cover the same surface area as a group of 5 or 10 street trees yet the canopy volume would be hugely different.

This report needs to take into consideration these concerns of biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability. Many of these concerns are addressed in a 68 page report by the Montgomery Tree Committee entitled “Urban Tree Conservation: A White Paper on Local Ordinances”

An inherent conflict of interest exists in having DPD develop and oversee urban forest and tree regulations. It represents an internal conflict of interests. DPD’s primary mission is to help people develop their property. As noted in a recent public presentation by a DPD employee, the DPD’s interpretation is that trees can be saved unless they prohibit the development potential of a lot. As such DPD’s mission is clear and trees lose.

Seattle’s urban forest needs an independent advocate for its protection. The most likely candidate is to vest tree regulation and oversight in one city agency, not nine as is currently the situation. The Office of Sustainability and Environment is the most logical choice. The recent city Auditor’s Report in 2009 entitled “Management of City Trees Can be Improved”, concurred with this view when it stated that the City “Unify all City Departments behind a single mission through clear and demonstrated leadership by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment. The City’s current approach to trees lacks top leadership with the authority and accountability to ensure implementation of the Urban Forestry Management Plan.”

Another directive is to look at “establishing a requirement to obtain a permit before removing any tree in any residential, commercial or industrial zone”. Again pretty clear, yet DPD’s response is to oppose this, despite other cities requiring permits before trees can be cut down. Seattle already has a requirement to get a permit to cut down or prune privately planted and maintained trees in the public right of way, like the parking strip in front of one’s home. The permit is administered by SDOT, the Seattle Department of Transportation. The report makes no mention of this.

What is needed is to expand this current tree cutting permit to include all trees on public and private property that are above some minimum diameter. Many cities use a 6 inch diameter. Of course a special case needs to be dealt with in replacement trees that are planted as the result of, e.g., a land use action. Many of these trees will be less than 6 inches in diameter for a number of years.

Permits could be several tiered, with a list of exceptional trees being much more difficult to remove. There is no enforcement now of cutting of exceptional trees because DPD operates with a complaint based system, rather than a permit system. It is a dismal failure. By the time you hear the chainsaw, it is impossible to save exceptional trees or any other trees.

Permits could be applied for on the internet, and posted for at least a week before final approval and for a week afterwards so that the public and the city have a chance to check them out. Atlanta, GA requires a 2 week posting period. For a large tree like a 70 year old Douglas fir, a week or two is a small time indeed. Signs should also be posted, visible to the public in the vicinity of the tree to be cut. Neighbors on adjoining properties should be notified since frequently tree disputes are about whose tree it really is. A way to question or appeal the tree cutting should be set up, requiring at least a second opinion by the city or another arborist.

To eliminate the requirement that property owners know every nuance of the law, tree arborists doing business in the city should apply for a special tree cutting license, be professionally certified and attend a briefing by city officials on our tree laws and regulations. If trees are removed contrary to the law, the city could then go after the arborists with fines, and for repeat offenders or multiple violations, revocation also of their license. Most homeowners are not going to cut down large trees on their property because of damage and liability issues. They will probably hire someone.

One possible incentive system could be patterned after the senior exemption for property owners. The senior exemption is not automatic but property owners have to fill out an application and not exceed certain income levels. A rebate or reduction in water and sewer bills for maintaining trees and forested area could be made available but people would have to apply for them, listing tree species and sizes. This would help to establish the connection between trees and the benefits they provide property and home owners and the city.

Unfortunately the DPD report was prepared in secret without any major public input. It did not represent an open process or even examine many issues brought up in resolution 31138. And it is by no means comprehensive. Besides some of the major concerns we’ve brought up, any urban forestry or “tree” regulation is subject to the details in how the law would actually be written. The devil is in the details and there are very few details in this report.

As an example the DPD should use as a starting guideline an evaluation of any proposed regulation on the level proposed by The International Society of Arboriculture in its 181 page “Guideline for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances.” A smaller and incomplete checklist was also developed by the Georgia Forestry Commission entitled, “Tree Ordinance Development Guideline”.

Both these reports should act as a starting point to discuss the multitude of issues and specific concerns that need to be addressed in the development of any comprehensive urban forest and tree ordinance that both works and is accepted by the public. The current report is incomplete and unacceptable.

Please contact Mayor McGinn and the Seattle City Council to voice your opposition to DPD’s proposal to remove protections for exceptional trees, tree groves and our urban forest.  Urge that they enact strong legislation to protect our urban forest, increase our canopy cover and protect habitat for native plants and animals.

You can contact them at:

mike.mcginn@seattle.gov seattle.gov
richard.conlin@seattle.gov
nick.licata@seattle.gov
tom.rasmussen@seasttle.gov
sally.clark@seattle.gov
tim.burgess@seattle.gov
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
jean.godden@seattle.gov
sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
mike.obrien@seattle.gov

also cc the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission at
tracy.morgenstern@seattle.gov

Comments Off on Seattle’s DPD Proposes Eliminating Almost all Tree Protections

Posted in Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Progressive Majority Targets 20 Key Races in Washington State

Posted on August 4th, 2010 | Comments Off on Progressive Majority Targets 20 Key Races in Washington State

Progressive Majority over the last few years has done a tremendous job getting progressives elected to office. Their recruiting and training effort is bringing new faces into the political arena. Their campaign team effort is now active in 8 states – Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. Here in Washington State they are supporting 20 candidates running for local office in 2010.

Below is a list of the candidates and races.  Go to their State webpage and click on Washington State to get information on the candidates and their campaigns.

Luis Moscosco – Legislative District 1 – House

Andy Billig – Legislative District 3 – House

Dean Willard – Legislative District 5 – House

Laurie Jinkins – Legislative District 27 – House

Tami Green – Legislative District 28 – House

Carol Gregory – Legislative District 30 – House

Peggy Levesque – Legislative District 31 – House

Cindy Ryu – Legislative District 32 – House

Sharon Nelson – Legislative District 34 – Senate

Joe Fitzgibbon – lLgislative District 34 – House

Nick Harper – Legislative District 38 – House

Randy Gordon – Legislative District 41 – Senate

Eric Oemig – Legislative District 45 – Senate

Geoff Simpson – Legislative District 47 – House

Claudia Kauffman – Legislative District 47 – Senate

John Dean – Island County Commissioner

Patricia Terry – Island County Clerk

Joe McDermott – King County Council

Todd Iverson – Pierce County Council

Jean Melious – Whatcom County Council

Comments Off on Progressive Majority Targets 20 Key Races in Washington State

Posted in Democrats, Elections

Tagged , , ,

Corporate America Planning to Spend Record Amount in Congressional Elections

Posted on August 4th, 2010 | Comments Off on Corporate America Planning to Spend Record Amount in Congressional Elections

Republicans last week did the dirty work for the US Chamber of Commerce – their buddies. The Chamber lobbied hard against tougher campaign finance disclosure laws in Congress. Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously to block the legislation from being voted on. Republicans don’t want the public knowing who is going to be spending tons of money in their behalf to try to bring back the conservative’s failed free market economics with its lack of regulation and accountability that contributed heavily to our present lingering Recession.

As reported in the LA Times,

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest collection point for corporate contributions, has increased its spending for the congressional election in November from $35 million in 2008 to a projected $75 million this year. Officials say it may go even higher.

The chamber has been joined by new conservative fundraising organizations — such as American Crossroads, affiliated with Republican strategist Karl Rove — that have committed to raising tens of millions of dollars.

One report circulating among Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill last week estimated that more than $300 million has been budgeted for the campaign by a group of 15 conservative tax-exempt organizations.

“A commitment of $300 million from just 15 organizations is a huge amount, putting them in record territory for groups on the right or left,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. “With control of Congress hanging in the balance, this kind of spending could have a major impact.”

The US Chamber of Commerce loves all this hype and obviously isn’t denying their attempt to influence the elections through this profligate paid speech.  They even posted the article on their website.

Decisions by the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court have opened the floodgates of paid media. Forget free speech – do you think  “free speech” can compete with “paid speech” of this magnitude? One has to hope that their lavish spending turns the public off and those concerned about corporate America’s blatant attempt to buy a Congress to do their dirty work out and vote.

Democrats and independents concerned about this country being run by corporate America need to reject the failed policies of the Republicans. This is a crucial election for the future of our country. Get out and vote.

Comments Off on Corporate America Planning to Spend Record Amount in Congressional Elections

Posted in Elections

Tagged , , , ,

Endorsements by the Washington State League Of Education Voters for 2010 Elections

Posted on August 2nd, 2010 | Comments Off on Endorsements by the Washington State League Of Education Voters for 2010 Elections

The Washington State League of Education voters has endorsed some 44 Legislative candidates and 2 candidates running for the Washington State Supreme Court for this year’s elections.  The primary vote is August 17, 2010 . Ballots must be postmarked by this date or they don’t count. The LEV notes that Secretary of State Sam Reed estimates that only some 38% of voters will actually vote in the primary.

In the Washington State Supreme Court races noted, there are only 2 candidates for each seat so the top vote getter basically wins and will appear alone on the Nov. ballot. So each vote is critical. Please send back your ballots.

Go to the LEV website at http://www.levpac.org/ for more information on specific candidates as well as links to their websites. Candidates of course can still use campaign help and funds for their election efforts.

Washington State Supreme Court

•Position 1: Stan Rumbaugh

•Position 6: Charlie Wiggins

Pro-Education Incumbents:

These legislators have taken a leadership role on education and children’s issues in Olympia. *Denotes LEV PAC targeted candidates.

Washington State Senate

•Chris Marr, D-Spokane (6th LD)

•Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor (26th LD)*

•Tracey Eide, D-Federal Way (30th LD)

•Sharon Nelson, D-Seattle (34th LD)

•Randy Gordon, D-Mercer Island (41st LD)*

•Ed Murray, D-Seattle (43rd LD)

•Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens (44th LD)

•Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland (45th LD)*

•Scott White, D-Seattle (46th LD)

•Claudia Kauffman, D-Kent (47th LD)*

•Rodney Tom, D-Bellevue (48th LD)*

Washington State House of Reprersentatives

•John Driscoll, D-Spokane (6th LD)

•Kevin Parker, R-Spokane (6th LD)

•Judy Warnick, R-Moses Lake (13th LD)

•Tim Probst, D-Vancouver (17th LD)*

•Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo (21st LD)

•Mary Helen Roberts, D-Edmonds (21st LD)

•Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island (23rd LD)

•Dawn Morrell, D-Puyallup (25th LD)

•Bruce Dammeier, R-Puyallup (25th LD)*

•Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor (26th LD)

•Ruth Kagi, D-Lake Forest Park (32nd LD)*

•Tina Orwall, D-Normandy Park (33rd LD)

•Fred Finn, D-Olympia (35th LD)

•Kathy Haigh, D-Shelton (35th LD)

•Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle (36th LD)

•Marcie Maxwell, D-Renton (41st LD)*

•Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham (42nd LD)

•Frank Chopp, D-Seattle (43rd LD)

•Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish (44th LD)

•Larry Springer, D-Kirkland (45th LD)

•Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland (45th LD)*

•Phyllis Kenney, D-Seattle (46th LD)

•Pat Sullivan, D-Covington (47th LD)*

•Ross Hunter, D-Medina (48th LD)*

•Jim Jacks, D-Vancouver (49th LD)

New Candidates
These promising, new candidates will continue the momentum behind education reform and funding in the Legislature.

Washington State House of Representatives

•Andy Billig, D-Spokane (3rd LD)

•Monica Stonier, D-Vancouver (17th LD)

•Chris Reykdal, D-Tumwater (22nd LD)

•Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma (27th LD)

•Carol Gregory, D-Federal Way (30th LD)

•Cathy Dahlquist, R-Enumclaw (31st LD)

•Kris Lytton, D-Anacortes (40th LD)

•David Frockt, D-Seattle (46th LD)

Comments Off on Endorsements by the Washington State League Of Education Voters for 2010 Elections

Posted in Elections, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , ,

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club 2010 Endorsements

Posted on August 2nd, 2010 | Comments Off on Cascade Chapter Sierra Club 2010 Endorsements

Below is the list of 2010 Political Endorsements made by the Washington State  Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club

National Position Name

All WA districts U.S. Senator Patty Murray

WA – C1 U.S. Representative Jay Inslee

WA – C2 U.S. Representative Rick Larsen

WA – C3 U.S. Representative Denny Heck

WA – C6 U.S. Representative Norm Dicks

WA – C7 U.S. Representative Jim McDermott

WA – C9 U.S. Representative Adam Smith

State Position Name

All districts Referendum: Vote YES Referendum 52

WA – 02 State Representative #2 Tom Campbell

WA – 03 State Representative #1 Timm Ormsby

WA – 17 State Representative #1 Tim Probst

WA – 17 State Representative #2 Monica Stonier

WA – 18 State Representative #1 Dennis Kampe

WA – 21 State Representative #1 Marko Liias

WA – 22 State Representative #1 Sam Hunt

WA – 22 State Representative #1 Stewart Henderson

WA – 23 State Representative #1 Christine Rolfes

WA – 23 State Representative #1 Sherry Appleton

WA – 25 State Representative #2 Dawn Morrell

WA – 26 State Representative #1 Sumner Schoenike

WA – 26 State Representative #2 Larry Seaquist

WA – 26 State Senator Derek Kilmer

WA – 27 State Representative #1 Jake Fey

WA – 27 State Representative #2 Jeannie Darneille

WA – 28 State Representative #1 Tami Green

WA – 29 State Representative #1 Connie Ladenburg

WA – 29 State Senator Steve Conway

WA – 31 State Senator Ron Weigelt

WA – 32 State Representative #1 Cindy Ryu

WA – 32 State Representative #1 Ruth Kagi

WA – 33 State Representative #1 Dave Upthegrove

WA – 34 State Representative #1 Sharon Nelson

WA – 34 State Representative #2 Joe Fitzgibbon

WA – 36 State Representative #1 Reuven Carlyle

WA – 36 State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles

WA – 37 State Senator Adam Kline

WA – 38 State Representative #1 John McCoy

WA – 43 State Representative #1 Jamie Pedersen

WA – 43 State Representative #2 Frank Chopp

WA – 43 State Senator Ed Murray

WA – 44 State Representative #1 Hans Dunshee

WA – 44 State Senator Lillian Kaufer

WA – 45 State Senator Eric Oemig

WA – 46 State Representative #1 David Frockt

WA – 47 State Representative #1 Geoff Simpson

WA – 47 State Senator Claudia Kauffman

WA – 48 State Representative #1 Ross Hunter

WA – 49 State Representative #1 Jim Jacks

WA – 49 State Representative #2 Jim Moeller

County Position Name

King Conservation Board Max Prinsen

Pierce County Council Betty Ringlee (D), District 7

Pierce County Council Rick Talbert

Thurston County Commission #3 Karen Valenzuela

Comments Off on Cascade Chapter Sierra Club 2010 Endorsements

Posted in Elections

Tagged , , ,

Seattle DPD Proposes to End Protections for Old Trees in City

Posted on August 2nd, 2010 | Comments Off on Seattle DPD Proposes to End Protections for Old Trees in City

In a bizarre analysis by the Seattle Department of Planning and Development, it is proposed that Seattle no longer protect its large and old trees.  This is no joke.  They propose incentives as a better way to protect trees, but provide no clear examples or surveys showing this approach works.  They argue that because the current system doesn’t seem to work for them, that we should quit trying. This is like BP after a week saying they couldn’t stop the oil flowing into the Gulf so they were giving up.

Seattle’s current system doesn’t work largely because DPD doesn’t enforce it.  No permits are required by DPD to cut down trees of any size. Under the current interim ordinance someone can supposedly cut down up to 3 trees a year on their property.  Although they are not supposed to cut down exceptional trees (which are detailed in Director’s Rule 16-2008), unless diseased or a hazard, the only way DPD follows up is if someone files a complaint.  Of course by the time you hear the chainsaw it is too late to stop the tree or trees from being cut down.

This is why Seattle needs to put in place an expanded system to require that people get a permit to cut down any tree over 6 inches. I say expanded because we already have a permit program  for removing or pruning privately maintained street trees in the right of way. It is administrated by the Seattle Department of Transportation  (SDOT). Other cities also require permits before trees can be cut down.

The whole idea is to be sure that trees are not removed unnecessarily, that the tree is not really on someone else’s property and that it is not an exceptional tree. An expanded permit system could be required for removal of any tree 6 inches in diameter or larger by private property owners and by the city. Citizens need to know that the city has to follow the same rules as they do. The current DPD proposal only refers to private property.

Permits could be several tiered, with exceptional trees being harder to cut down because of increased fees and more requirements to get approval.  Hazardous or diseased trees would be able to be removed with minimal or no restrictions.

Permits could be applied for on the Internet and posted for a minimum of 1 week before being approved. Physical posting on the property and visible to the public would be required for 1 week before and 1 week after cutting.

Arborists working in the city would be required to certified by a professional group and register with the city.  They would be required to attend a briefing on the city’s tree regulations. If exceptional trees are cut down without approval, arborists would be fined and or lose their license to do business in the city.  It is easier to inform several hundred arborists of our tree and urban forestry regulations than it is to try to inform all the citizens.  Most large trees in the city require an arborist to cut in most cases, few homeowners are skilled enough or able to cut large trees in the city without facing potential damage and liability issues.

DPD’s analysis is flawed because it emphasizes trees as a burden rather than as a part of Seattle’s infrastructure. Our urban forest and its trees and vegetation  reduce storm water runoff, clean the air, reduce noise pollution, provide habitat for birds, insects and other animals, provide aesthetics as a green space and contribute to our quality of life in the city.

We can have trees and development; it is not an either/or situation.  We need to protect our green infrastructure.  Most of Seattle’s canopy increase is coming from increased planting of street trees.  We are losing the large old trees with their much larger canopy volume and resultant benefits to city inhabitants.  DPD proposal is a major step backward. Let the Seattle City Council and the Mayor know that you oppose the current proposal and that they need to put emphasis on retaining our trees.  They represent the green legacy that we need to protect and pass on to future generations living in the Emerald City.

Comments Off on Seattle DPD Proposes to End Protections for Old Trees in City

Posted in Environment, Urban Forests

Tagged , , , , , ,