Russell Investment

Russell Investment

While cities generally would rather keep than lose businesses, especially large highly profitable businesses that generate pretty much no civic negatives and hardly any costs, the top of today’s lead Tacoma News Tribune story sounded a bit excessive: “The City of Destiny has reached a tipping point. Whether it tips forward into greater prosperity or back into disappointment hangs on a fateful decision by Russell Investment Group.”

It’s an investment company, one that sounds not terribly different from lots of other investment firms around the country. What’s so special that Russell ought to generate that kind of lead (and equally strong-worded quotes from community people)?

Several things, as it turns out; this was a piece of the Northwest whose significance had passed us by. Russell, it seems, is not just any investment company. Founded in Tacoma 71 years ago as essentially a one-man operation (remember that this was an investment startup in the teeth of the Great Depression), it has grown. Quite a bit. It employs 2,100 people (in offices linked to Tacoma from Amsterdam, Auckland, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo and Toronto) and manages more than $230 billion. It is a big international player, but more than half of its people (employees have increased almost 10-fold in the last 30 years or so) and the largest chunk of its operations remain in unlikely Tacoma.

Now those central offices, spread around town inconveniently, are giving cause for Russell to reconsider its physical situation. Simply finding new quarters in Tacoma might be a simple enough answer if the company were still locally owned, but it isn’t: The most recent Russell sold it in 1998 to the Milwaukee insurance company Northwestern Mutual. And, the News Tribune reports, the company’s major leases on space in Tacoma expire in 2013.

Tacoma clearly would like to keep Russell. And maybe it will. But the immediate question to ask and issue to watch is, what will it do, how far will it go, to try to make that happen?

Share on Facebook


Let’s pause a moment to review the sequence of events, as they have emerged, following the legal repositioning of cold medicine from last year.

Components of many cold medicines are often used in creating methamphetamine, so Oregon lawmakers decided to slap controls on them, taking them off shelves and keeping track of who buys them. To that was soon added a similar, but somewhat less sweeping, federal law. We were skeptical about how much good this would do.

On the plus side, there have been consistent reports that the number of local small-scale meth producers – the kind of places operating in houses and other small buildings – have declined considerably. Those places have been hazards, so this much is good news.

The rest of the story: Meth use has remained roughly constant, evidently not declining at all. And where they are getting the stuff? From the Oregonian (a major crusader on meth) today: “Those small-time dealers largely have been replaced, law enforcement officials say, by gangs who buy the drugs in large quantities and sell them in bulk to lower-level dealers.”

In other words, more larger-scale trafficking, more concentrated money involved, even more guns and even more violence. The state’s solution (understandable under the immediate narrow circumstances) – at least that of initiative developer Kevin Mannix and a growing number of state legislators – is to increase the allowable prison sentences for drug dealers. Hello more prisons and ever-ballooning ex-cons to come. And very little more done to actually reduce the number of meth users (although a number of efforts, from drug courts to other kinds of rehab, do show signs of promise).

Meth is a very real problem; there’s no making light of that. But we just keep doing such a wonderful job of dealing with it, you have to wonder when some new approaches will take root.

Share on Facebook


Jim Goller

Jim Goller

The 2007 biography of former Idaho Senator Jim McClure contained a lot of references to a man probably few Idahoans – speaking generally, as opposed to the politically involved – knew much about: Jim Goller, operator of a small business until he hooked up with McClure and worked for him through his years in Congress. Such a quick description comes nowhere close to doing justice, though, or explaining why Goller was (rightly) so prominent in the story of McClure and in Idaho politics.

Goller, who died on Thursday at 81, was the political craft supporting McClure, one of the most successful Idaho politicians ever (three terms in the U.S. Senate, three in the U.S. House, three in the Idaho Senate, spanning 30 years). McClure was a skilled officeholder and a good candidate, but the political work underlying all that, getting McClure elected and keeping him in office, stemmed from Goller. The book (McClure of Idaho by William Smallwood, reviewed here in August) spelled this out pretty thoroughly, but the point works in reverse too: Writing a biography of McClure without Goller as a major player would be either dishonest or impossible, as McClure would be quick to say.

He was a nice guy and a fine conversationalist, but the point here is the effect he had on Idaho politics. Goller became an important figure in Idaho with McClure’s first campaign for Congress in 1966, and hindsight shows that to be an important campaign. With it, Goller and McClure set a pattern for Idaho Republican conservatism, a winning formula, that had not been nailed down before that, but that has come to dominate Idaho politics in the four decades since, and is overwhelmingly in political control at present. Goller, who never held elective office and just one substantial appointive one (a seat on the Northwest Power Planning Council, appointed there by Democrat Cecil Andrus), has been one of the most consequential Idaho people of the last couple of generations.

He was something else, too, something fading a bit in the political world around and without him: A tough partisan who never (and that is the right word) demonized the opposition. Which is why an Andrus would describe (in the Idaho Statesman) Goller this way: “a consummate political professional who was widely respected on both sides of the political aisle. He was tough, competent, smart and a worthy adversary and also a very dear friend of mine.”

Share on Facebook


We regularly pick up on fundraising letters, often these days by email, and so many of them are depressingly similar: Contribute now or the world as you know it will end. Yeah, this kind of scare stuff must work, but too much of it still represents an insult to most people’s intelligence.

However. This morning we got one in a mail from the Jeff Merkley campaign (U.S. Senate, Oregon, Democratic) that reads a little differently. It was structured as a “holiday wish list,” and included a list of potential “gifts” donors could give the campaign.

Roll of stamps ($41.00) Mailings are a key way for Team Merkley to notify Oregonians about upcoming events, recruit new volunteers and inform voters about Jeff’s message for progressive change. Your gift of $41 buys us a roll of stamps so we can tell others about our campaign. . . .

Computer for new Team Merkley staff ($800) Computers are a critical component for our campaign. Our new staff will need computers to email organizers in Roseburg or develop lists for canvassers in Lincoln City. Donate $800 today to get our new staff equipped with a computer.

New Team Merkley staffer ($2300)
We’re building a movement across the state and we’re continuing to build a highly talented staff. With your $2300 contribution we can hire an organizer in Bend or a researcher in our Portland HQ.

How about that . . . making the donations practical, showing the specific results of contributing a specific amount. Presumably this approach to fundraising will continue or not depending on whether it works. But you’d think enough partisans will be happy to see this approach, and react accordingly, so that it will.

Share on Facebook


Richard Stallings

Richard Stallings

The Idaho Democratic Party has its challenges, bigger than any one person; one wag on an Idaho Statesman comment board wrote today, “It’s not actually a party. Its kind of a get-together. If it turns into a real party, the Republicronies will have the police break it up.”

Former Representative Richard Stallings, who has been party chair for about the last three years, said today that he will resign almost immediately. (That comes only a few days after his resignation from the Pocatello city council, which he said then he was doing so he could devote more time to the party.)

As is the norm with these transitions, there’s call for people in the party to consider what to do next, to try to move toward serious competition with the Republicans in what is, at the moment, a blood-red state with a few scattered blue dots. As an provider of candidates for election, it is down: No congressional seats (out of four), no statewide offices (out of seven), nearly all its legislators confined to Boise, Pocatello and the Sun Valley area. And the party itself has not for ages been anything resembling a well-oiled machine; too many of its pieces keep flying apart.

On the other hand, dominance of square mileage isn’t especially important in politics – just ask the Republicans in Washington and Oregon who often win most of the counties and the bulk of the geography in their states, only to lose the actual elections. If Democrats in Idaho can figure out how to make inroads into suburbia the way their western counterparts have (Idaho Democrats showed some ability here in within Boise in 2006), they could become more competitive even if they never capture the hearts of Bear Lake, Fremont or Adams counties.

Do they head that way, or get a chance to? The next chair will have a central role in working out a direction.

The new chair will be elected on January 4, when the party’s central committee meets.

Early word of prospect brings up three names, all quite familiar to party people: former gubernatorial candidate (2002, 2006) Jerry Brady of Idaho Falls, former congressional candidate (1996, 1998) and Boise attorney Dan Williams, and former attorney general candidate (2002) and Hailey attorney Keith Roark. All active as candidates, none of them have been especially active within the party organization; any could plausibly be elected.

What thoughts they have for party rebuilding are less than clear at this point. But between here and the vote on the 4th, Democrats logically ought to be asking them (assuming they do in fact decide to run, or whoever else does) exactly how they plan to resurrect the Democratic brand in the Gem State. 2008 should be a favorable time for it; or about as favorable as Idaho Democrats get.

Share on Facebook


An early indication of how the Northwest’s U.S. House seats are perceived nationally:

The national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which at the moment is well-enough funded to go after Republicans incumbents more than it has to play defense (it has $30.6 million to $2.3 million for its Republican counterpart), today released its list of 40 Republican-held target seats. Two of them are Northwestern: Washington’s 8th, held by Dave Reichert, and Idaho’s 1st, held by Bill Sali.

Money is apt to be flowing in those directions in the months ahead.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Washington

The topic of cleanup at the Idaho National Laboratory is good for long-term burnout. While an intensive cleanup project has long been underway to the west at Hanford, a great deal of the core cleanup work remains to be done in eastern Idaho.

What’s mostly under discussion is the buried waste around the large INL grounds, much of it low-level but some of it quite hazardous. Some Superfund activity has been going on, too, but the whole process – which is becoming a little aged by now, having been launched with a high-profile state-federal agreement in 1995 – still is awaiting some general policy: What do we clean up, what do we just leave as is, and what do we do with it all?

On October 22, federal agencies (the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency) and the state proposed options “for addressing buried waste at the DOE-Idaho Site’s Radioactive Waste Management Complex Subsurface Disposal Area. The Radioactive Waste Management Complex was established in 1952 for the buried disposal of site-generated radioactive and hazardous wastes. From 1954 through 1970, the landfill received wastes from the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado and other off-site generators.” The options ranged from no action (1) to full waste removal (5). But evidently, the weight of planning seems to be moving toward picking up just some of it. And maybe not all that much.

Here’s a longish quote from an op-ed published this week from Peter Rickards of Twin Falls, an activist for at least a couple of decades on nuclear waste, and his take of where this seems to be headed.

Do you remember the nuclear waste deal in 1995? The Lockheed nuclear businessmen teamed with the Republican politicians and ex-Gov. Cecil Andrus in the “Get the Waste Out” campaign. Colorful ads promised this nuclear deal would “say no to leaving waste over the aquifer.” They promised if we import tons of foreign spent nuclear fuel, this deal would “guarantee that the federal government must come up with the money to clean up existing Idaho National Engineering Laboratory waste for disposal outside our state.”

Well, the final buried plutonium “clean-up” plan is out for official public comment now, quietly released during the holiday season. Without a whisper from the politicians or state nuclear oversight team, the “preferred alternative” No. 4 does not come even close to removing 10 percent of the buried plutonium, which is leaking over our water supply in a flood zone.

Why is the state not demanding alternative No. 5, which removes “all” the buried plutonium? Why did the state say, “they were supporting the partial retrieval and awaiting to see the public comment”?

The final plan concludes a full clean-up is too expensive! Have you ever seen an Idaho politician refuse $8 billion in nuclear jobs? Why are the politicians refusing to demand a full clean up? There is more than one ton of dumped plutonium particles, with billions of cancer causing particles in each pound.

Do you remember the infamous Pit 9? In 1993, that was chosen as the worst plutonium pit, and the plan was to remove it all, and then get the rest. Then Lockheed’s subsidiary company that won the contract, refused to lift a shovel full. Lockheed’s subsidiary sued Lockheed to collect the money anyway. Now, this final plan cherry-picks just a very small portion of Pit 9!

The state has bragged that it won the Clinton-esque court case over the definition of “all” the buried plutonium. Removing all the plutonium waste is what we were promised in 1970. To be clear: 1) the 1995 ads promised all buried plutonium would be removed. That would be 58,000 cubic meters. 2) The court ordered that since “the state agreed to change the definition of transuranic waste” during the deal negotiations, that only 30,000 cubic meters of the buried plutonium must be removed. So, really, “all means half” according to our trusty politicians and state officials! But now, this final plan does not even come close to removing even that half, or the 30,000 cubic meters, of court-ordered buried plutonium. Not even close!

The formal comment period is about to close. But as word of some of this starts to circulate, the pressure to do something more could pick up anyway.

[NOTE Corrected to state that the comment period ends tomorrow; thanks to an altert reader for pointing out the correct date.]

Share on Facebook


port audit

The port audit

The elections last month for the Port of Seattle commission positions seemed to center on to what degree you were a “reformer” or at least a boat-rocker. Too bad the state auditor’s report on the district didn’t come out a couple of months earlier; it might have clarified the need while voters were making up their minds. As it is, the new report (undertaken as part of the auditor’s new Initiative 900 authority) is plenty devastating. The waste and losses reach deep into the tens of millions – just for certain specific projects like the Third Runway – and possibly higher overall.

The overarching conclusions include:
• The Port lacks sufficient policies and procedures to safeguard public assets from misuse, abuse and fraud. In cases in which controls are in place, they are not always followed.
• The Port Commission has largely delegated decision-making responsibilities for construction projects to Port management and employees. In some cases,
vendors control projects and make decisions that should be made by the Port.
• Port executive management has withheld information from and sometimes has misinformed the Commission about the terms and progress of construction
These conditions are caused by: The Port Commission’s adoption of Resolution 3181, delegating some of its decision-making authority to Port administration, including some oversight of construction management. The former Chief Executive Officer’s broad interpretation of the resolution effectively distanced the Commission from information and oversight authority of capital projects. The audit found no record of the Commission reassessing or questioning whether it was meeting its responsibilities to oversee construction projects. These conditions leave the Port’s construction management vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse. For example, Port management authorized a Third Runway contract that cost $32.7 million more than the Port engineer’s original estimate. The contract violated state law, and details of the arrangement were concealed from the Commission.
In addition, a consulting agreement awarded in 1998 increased without competition from $10 million to more than $120 million and is being used to augment Port staffing, unnecessarily costing taxpayers $60.5 million.

And goes on from there.

There’s been occasional talk about bad activity at the port, an undercurrent of “things ain’t right there.” Now there’s a report to put it in perspective.

Not much room for doubt any more: The suspicions are justified.

Share on Facebook


Of course this was going to be a lawsuit – the people in Moscow should have (and maybe they did) seen this coming. This is exactly the sort of thing the Idaho Values Alliance and its allies live for.

On Monday, the Moscow City Council passed an ordinance detailing provisions for the health insurance it provides, through Regence Blue Shield of Idaho. Among other things, it allows for coverage of household members including “domestic partners” – Regence’s language. The ordinance adds that “A City employee who files the Affidavit Of Qualifying Domestic Partnership acknowledges to Regence that the information provided in such Affidavit is for the sole purpose of determining eligibility for the related Regence Blue Shield of Idaho benefits and, therefore, is not an establishment of a ‘domestic partnership’ or of a ‘domestic legal union’ prohibited in the State of Idaho.”

Not good enough for Bryan Fischer and the Idaho Values Alliance:

This action cannot go unchallenged, and cannot be allowed to stand. If Moscow gets away with granting domestic partnerships – including same-sex partnerships – equal status with one-man, one-woman marriages, the state’s marriage amendment will become meaningless.

The IVA will immediately begin to explore ways to trigger an investigation by the state Attorney General’s office into the blatantly unconstitutional conduct of what even locals call “The People’s Republic of Moscow.”

Fischer to the Spokesman-Review: “What Moscow did was to say that co-habiting and same-sex partnerships are legally and morally equivalent to the marriage of one man and one woman, and that is very bad public policy.” Actually, Moscow’s resolution said nothing of the sort (as you can tell by reading it). But that hardly matters:

And a new battle in the culture wars is underway.

Share on Facebook


Toward the end of his interview this morning with Democratic Senate candidate Steve Novick, Portland radio host Lars Larson said he’d like to invite Novick back. Sounds like a plan: Given time, this could turn into a neat point-counterpoint.

This morning’s had its awkward moments. That may be partly because Novick was on phone rather than in studio (and it does make a difference; these kind of conversations can flow better when you have the visual cues in front of you). Probably too these two strong personalities were still getting the hang of having a discussion.

But they were right on the edge of something pretty good, real engagement between distinct world views, put by two highly skilled talkers.

Some of it was just some easy jousting: Novick tagging Larson for calling it the “Democrat” party instead of its proper name; Larsen saying he’d be glad to put the “ic” back in; Novick rejoinding the he wouldn’t want to start calling Larson’s party the “Repubes.”

Most of the talk, what Novick came on to talk about, was Republican Senator Gordon Smith‘s praise of Senator Trent Lott for his praise of former Senator Strom Thurmond (specifically, Lott’s statement that the country would have been better off if Thurmond’s 1948 pro-segregation campaign had won the presidency). Larson didn’t seem to take great issue with a lot of Novick’s comments on this, though he did say the complaints would have more resonance with him if Lott himself had a segregationist past. To which Novick responded with some relevant background about Lott’s close relationship with a number of white supremacist groups over the years.

Other subjects got less discussion. (On global warming, Novick: “Oh, good Lord, get with the program!” Larson: “I think I am with the program.”) More would be good.

Share on Facebook


Bill Sali

Bill Sali

We’re among those apt to be irritated by people who deliver an extensive case for some proposition or other and end it with the tag line, “don’t you think?” Gee . . . thanks for inserting a whole litany of your thoughts and ideas into my mouth.

Idaho Representative Bill Sali has done something like that with his latest letter to constituents – this was an official and franked mailing – on immigration-related policy. (It is headlined: “An urgent message from U.S. Congressman Bill Sali: We must secure the borders – without amnesty – and make English the spoken language of the United States of America.”) There’s a survey (a two-choice response possible) at the end, but that follows three pages of single-spaced outline of Sali’s position.

Sali, like many Republican political figures, has a difficult time right now with immigration and people who are in this country illegally: The Republican base is split on the subject. His letter tries to come off as definitive, but pause for thought and questions arise almost by the paragraph. Much of it is the usual mix of strengthening the borders, increasing enforcement while “ensuring that the U.S. has access to the temporary workers that its industries need” (while not turning employers into bureaucratic proxies and paper-shufflers) and streamlining the process of immigration. These pieces are most part of the broad conventional wisdom; what no one seems to have figured out yet is how to make them work together rather than in opposition. After reading the letter, it seems no one has yet.

The most distinctive element of this seems to be H.R. 997 (the “English Language Unity Act of 2007″), which would “to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress’ powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.” It was introduced by Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, and isn’t new; earlier versions (carrying the same bill number) were introduced, and died, in each of the last three terms of Congress, and in terms before that. Currently, it is lodged in the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

What goals does Sali set for it? “As part of a broader package to secure our nation’s borders – without granting amnesty – I’m working on a proposal that would help make English the spoken [emphasis in original] language of the United States.”

It’s not hard to see where this comes from: Anyone (most English-speaking Americans, anyway) do get fed up trying to, say, conduct business at a convenience store or on the phone with a person who doesn’t much get the hang of English. And the Canadian example does show that a nation deeply divided by language has a serious problem. Realistically, though, the United States is nowhere near that point. As a practical matter, the large majority of people in this country speak and understand English and will continue to.

Would H.R. 997 do the job of moving the country toward unilingualism? Even though nothing like it has passed Congress, there’s ample history to suggest it would make little difference. Since 1981, which English-old legislation began to appear around the country, many states have acted on the idea, at least half of them as of 2003 (and maybe one or two more since). Follow the just-noted link and you’ll find a list of 23 states (Idaho is one) which have official English laws on the books (nearly all dating from 80s and 90s) and a few more (Oregon and Washington) passing “English-plus” resolutions. Have any of these accomplished anything?

It is possible to limit to English the language used in governmental paperwork and official conversation. It’s possible, but it would rapidly turn into a practical nightmare, as governments coast to coast find they are barred from communicating (or even trying to) with people who walk into or are ordered into their offices.

And outside of official governmental communications, the law doesn’t act at all, doesn’t otherwise dictate or even influence what kind of speech people could use. How could it?

A really detailed questionnaire seeking out a range of ideas that could work together might have a chance of doing some useful work. What we seem to have here is an early-early campaign mailing whose goal is to keep segments of the Republican base, badly splintered over immigration, from flying apart. That’s a different sort of endeavor.

Share on Facebook


Gordon Smith

Gordon Smith

Among the many words spoken over a career in politics, departing Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi probably would include some of those he said back in late 2002 in praise of Senator Strom Thurmond, that the nation might have been better off if Dixiecrat (and ardent segregationist) Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

Among the many words Oregon Senator Gordon Smith has uttered, he may come to regret a few he said this morning on the floor of the Senate, on occasion of Lott’s leave-taking:

“I watched over international news as his words were misconstrued, words which we had heard him utter many times in his big warm-heartedness trying to make one of our colleagues, Strom Thurmond, feel good at 100 years old. We knew what he meant. But the wolfpack of the press circled around him, sensed blood in the water, and the exigencies of politics caused a great injustice…”

(His comments are available on UTube.)

Note that “we knew what he meant.” And contrast it with Smith’s public comments on the matter, to the Oregonian, in late 2002: “However they were intended [emphasis added], Senator Lott’s words were offensive and I was deeply dismayed to hear of them. His statement goes against everything I and the people of Oregon believe in.”

“We knew what he meant . . .” But what, then, did Smith mean when he spoke to the Oregonian five years ago? Did he mean it at all? (Smith became a key manager in Lott’s eventual return to Senate leadership.)

We’re not much interested in “gotcha” quotes or incidents. This wasn’t just a misstatement or a misstep; this opens the door to something larger. Gordon Smith may have a time trying to circle this square.

Share on Facebook


Uninsurance report

Uninsurance report

Haven’t seen a lot of visible response so far to last week’s status report from Washington’s office of the insurance commissioner, which may be partly because on its face – the preceding description – it doesn’t sound like hot stuff.

The content is, though, or should be. And for the politically-minded among us, there’s some terrific resource material packed in toward the back.

The main thrust of the report (“Threatening the Health Security of Washington“) ought to be disturbing, if not especially surprising (for those who’ve paid attention to the woes of the medical care system these days). Except maybe in the details.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has pulled together a strong case for getting covered those who have no health insurance, and the very large additional number who are drastically underinsured. He means to take the case to the 2008 legislative session, and if he makes serious headway at all it could be the biggest single thing the legislature does this session, or maybe this term. Among the pieces:

Guaranteed coverage for all Washingtonians • All Washington residents would have a guaranteed benefit plan that provides catastrophic coverage for unexpected health emergencies and guaranteed access to basic preventive care such as immunizations, cancer screening, and annual check-ups. All residents would be able to purchase additional coverage for the more routine health care not included in the guaranteed benefit plan. Premiums would be more affordable due to the plan, and subsidies would be available, on a sliding-scale, to help individuals and families purchase additional coverage.
Managing risk instead of avoiding it – changing insurance company behavior • The costs for insuring all Washington residents – regardless of their health status –would be covered through combined pooling and better managing risk, rather than avoiding risk by making coverage unavailable and unaffordable for some.
Personal responsibility • All residents would contribute according to their means and be encouraged to live healthy lifestyles, in part through guaranteed access to preventive care.

Is something like this doable? It’s no slam dunk. But Washington legislators may be influenced by the example south of the Columbia, where Oregon officials already are busy setting up a health system approved by that state’s legislature earlier this year. Handled with great care (as it was in Oregon), something like this might happen.

The report points to the urgency. After a description of the problem of the uninsured (about 700,000 or so Washingtonians), there’s this on the insured: “Despite digging deep into their savings, raiding their retirement accounts and running up credit card balances, 27 percent of underinsured residents said they were still in debt to doctors and hospitals. Forty nine percent of all U.S. residents, and 43 percent of residents with insurance said they were “somewhat” to “completely medical emergency over the coming year.”

The problems have ballooned all over the system. Increasingly, hospitals are eating medical costs, and the operative word is “increasingly.” In 1996, Washington hospitals wrote off $160,347,281 in “uncompensated care”; exactly a decade later, the figure was $493,143,147 – tripled. That ought to be a number to conjure with at the statehouse.

Politics watchers can also find some juicy chart data here.

The numbers of the uninsured are broken down in this report by county, as estimates (low, high, middle). If we assume the midpoint, the state’s uninsureds account for about 11% of overall population (lower than most states). Ask which parts of the state are above or below that percentage, and you may be surprised, especially if you start hearing easterners talking about how this medical proposal is aimed at funneling money into the metroplex on the Puget.

The most-insured area in the state – the best-insured county – is King, with just 9.1% uninsured. Its close neighbors Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap are the only others under 10%. The Puget Sound area generally does relatively well, and Clark County runs just below the state average too.

The least-insured counties are in the Tri-Cities and rural eastern Washington. Franklin County at 20.3% is the least-insured in the state, followed by Adams (20%), Yakima (18.8%), Okanogan (17.9%) and Grant (16.8%). (The numbers on other measures, such as uncompensated care, tend roughly to follow suit.)

As you consider which legislators (and from where) may most supportive or skeptical of a meaningful medical system proposal, those numbers might usefully be thrown into the mix. Along with a quote from a national researcher into the issue which Kreidler uses at the beginning of his study: “It is misguided and even dangerous to assume the lack of health insurance harms only those who are uninsured. The rest of the community pays for uncompensated medical care either directly or indirectly, and high rates of uninsurance can strain community health systems to the point that important services have to be cut or eliminated.”

We’ll be following this.

Share on Facebook


Mary Starrett

Mary Starrett

Maybe nothing comes of this, but we’ll note here the possibility of a U.S. Senate candidate that could tip a balance if things are close in November: Mary Starrett, who ran for governor last year on the Constitution Party ticket.

From the Senate 2008 Guru site:

I engaged in a little investigative journalism and simply contacted Ms. Starrett. I mentioned the rumor and asked if a 2008 Senate bid was something she was considering. Her response by e-mail:

Anything’s possible…and let’s face it Gordon Smith needs a spanking, don’t you think?

First off, that certainly isn’t a “Nope, not considering a bid.” And it certainly sounds like she’s no fan of Gordon Smith. Like I mentioned on Saturday, she got 3.6% in the OR-Gov race, so her entry could cost Gordon Smith two or three percent.

Starrett’s percentage in the governor’s race was somewhat above that of most minor-party candidates, probably because she was a good candidate: Very presentable with strong candidate skills. She probably wouldn’t get much more than that 3.6% in a Senate race, but then, depending on how things go, that could be an important 3.6%.

Share on Facebook


The one-time diversion of corporate kicker (Oregon income tax refund) money this year drew little opposition, even from the business lobbies and corporations which were going to be losing the bucks. General public support seems substantial, since somewhere over four dollars out of five paid out in the corporate kicker go to businesses based out of state. So the opposition to removing the corporation kicker altogether (which would take constitutional and statutory changes), an effort begun last week, should be minimal, right?

Not necessarily. You can gauge an early sense of it from a post today by radio host Lars Larsen (shorter: it’s all about liberal money-grabbing) and the comments following, on Oregon Catalyst.

Share on Facebook