Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in November 2007

Pelosi rebuttal

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi

She's not from Oregon, sure, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was stunningly tone-deaf when she visited Portland this week. What she wanted to talk about was health care and health records, and her visit to the Oregon Health & Science University was intended to underscore that. And that part of it went off well enough.

But did neither she nor anyone on her staff pay the slightest attention to what the people on the ground - in Oregon - wanted to discuss? That was a rather different topic, federal timber payments, which have been cut off by congressional action and the absence of which have created genuine crises in a bunch of counties, especially in the southwest corner of the state.

Her only substantive comment about that was, "Where we go from here is to see how to phase this system out."

Not good enough, not nearly - these are communities in the midst of crisis. Republicans, including Senator Gordon Smith and Representative Greg Walden, promptly (and rightly) pounced on her comments. The Democrats, who ordinarily would have been happy with a visit from a House speaker, weren't thrilled either, though they tried to spread around blame for the cuts. (You had House members like Peter DeFazio pointing fingers at the Senate.)

The more pungent and pointed response comes from down Medford way, where the loss of timber money has bitten something fierce, at Rogue Pundit. That post is worth reading; it concludes, "Pelosi wasn't being candid about the phasing out of timber payments. The payments have ended, and the legislation to create a phase-out is languishing. This year, that can't be blamed on the Republicans."

Eyman says

Here's some of what Washington initiative king Tim Eyman had to say about yesterday's special legislative session, in which lawmakers passed two bills aimed at reducing or deferring taxes:

Your phone calls and letters and emails to legislators brought about this special session. And your phone calls and letters and emails reminded legislators the people were watching. They knew any shenanigans and chicanery would be exposed.

And it worked out beautifully. Even if for only a day, the people pushed and Olympia responded.

Is it what the voters want? No, the voters want a real 1% cap on property tax increases. Gregoire's bill promises a 1% cap but it doesn't fulfill that promise. But hey, we're dealing with Gregoire and the Democrats - they're amateurs when it comes to tax relief - it is not in their nature - so we'll take what we can get, even a bill with a huge loophole in it. We're glass-is-half-full kind of guys. We can't help but be ecstatic by the results of this special session and you should be too.

There's something especially delicious about this: I-747 received 58% voter support. But in the special session, it received 91% support from politicians in the state house. It received 81% support from politicians in the state senate. So on this day, politicians supported it by a much higher rate than the voters did. And it was signed into law by a tax-hiking Democrat Governor. What's not to love about that?

Destined for much republication . . .

Session in miniature

intertior, Washington statehouse Yeah, it's problematic, trying to do a whole lot of complex stuff in the space of one day, which is what the Washington Legislature is trying to do today. The good news is that it tips their hands - we get to see what's coming next, in the regular session starting January 14, when they can stretch out and roll.

Today's one-day (that's the theory; we'll know in a few hours if they make it) special session was called for an unusual purpose, to reverse a decision by the state supreme court. In reviewing Initiative 747, passed in 2002 and imposing 1% property tax limitations, the court essentially held that the voters didn't know what they were doing, and the measure was therefore void. It was one of the least well thought-out rulings by that court in recent times (we can't think offhand of one in years more poorly reasoned), and it sent the state's property tax crowd into a spin. And got local governments, some of them considering immediate tax increases, interested too.

Since this is the stuff tax revolts are made of, Governor Chris Gregoire called a special session to install the content of I-747 into state code by legislative action, and also pass a bill intended to help hardship cases in property tax payments. You should recall here that neither Gregoire nor most other Democrats were in favor of I-747 in the first place.

This morning, public radio reporter Austin Jenkins asked the Democratic leadership a sound question, one implicitly referenced in a number of columns and editorials: "Do you see the 1 percent cap as good and sensible public policy, or do you see that you're here today to enact the will of the voter?"

This square could have been circled, and the day's task simplified: "We're here to say that the initiative is a valid legal instrument, and shouldn't be short-circuited because someone does mind-reads the voters and thereby decides they were confused. Most initiatives would be subject to such attacks, and they shouldn't be. That's why we're here."

Of course, they didn't do that. The issue of property tax limitations and burdens came directly to the fore. Led by initiative master Tim Eyman, who wanted not only restitution of I-747 but also additions to enhance it (mainly related to "banking" of funds). Followed up by Democrats who had their own ideas about what to do with property tax limits.



This blog gets quoted elsewhere with some regularity, but we've not seen much specific analysis of who gets quoted where. (Other than more general tools like BlogNetNews, where we happen to rank Number 1 on this week's Idaho influence survey.)

What follows is partly a bit of horn-blowing but also commentary on the regional blogosphere.

The Idaho Statesman at Boise runs a feature called Other Voices, edited by Editorial Page Editor Kevin Richert, which sometimes includes comments from emails sent to the paper but usually comments from the area's blogosphere. Boise conservative blogger Adam Graham decided to count the numbers of recent quotes in Other Voices, and came up with this list:

1) Randy Stapilus-15 [Ridenbaugh Press]
2) Adam Graham-9
3) Betsy Russell-8 [Spokesman-Review]
3) Bryan Fischer-8
5) Red State Rebels-7
5) Mountain Goat Report-7
7) Idablue-5
[8] Huckleberries Online 4
[8] Fort Boise-4
[8] Dennis Mansfield-4
11) Joel Kennedy-2
11) Clayton Cramer-2

His speculation on why the numbers ran as they did: "My theory is that it comes down to a basic lack of conservative voices. To have an interesting round up of other opinion, conservative voices are needed, or otherwise it’s just one side and no real debate. Thus, while I’ve been quoted more often, Richert has keep things pretty much even by quoting quite a few liberal bloggers."

Richert's view is similar: "He has it pretty much right. My goal with Other Voices is to serve up a diverse discussion on the issues, in real time. I'm trying to present a good mix. Especially since both Graham and Fischer frequently criticize Statesman editorials or my ID Quicktakes posts; my top priority is to give our critics prominent play, in print and online. And there's another reason you see a lot of Graham and Fischer in the Other Voices feature. Frankly, there aren't many conservative bloggers around these parts. I can pick and choose from a larger pool of liberal/Democrat bloggers, so I do."

Our sense is that the situation is similar in Washington and Oregon: Liberal blogs simply outnumber conservative blogs, and we find ourselves revisiting the conservative blogs probably a little more often in consequence.

Drilling for water

Gerald Schroeder

Gerald Schroeder

The end result of this thing is likely to be not much different than where we are now. But it's a nearly-last chance for a bunch of water users in southern Idaho to stave off . . . shutdowns, in a lot of cases.

The issue is that there isn't enough water in the southern Snake River system to satisfy all the demands, and so what's spelled out in Idaho law - in the constitution - playing out: The owners of the oldest water rights are demanding priority delivery of their water. That's the way the system works in Idaho, and in most western states. But it's an unforgiving system, and a bunch of water users, mainly ground water users, are scrambling to find alternatives. They barely did a patch-n-scratch this year to fend off shutdowns; but what about next year, when reserves are down?

The hearing to try to find an answer started today, before Gerald Schroeder, formerly a state Supreme Court justice. It began with testimony from some of the senior right holders, including fish farmers, who asserted their rights. (The juniors will be pleading for mercy.) The next few steps in this drama (Schroeder will make a recommendation to the Idaho Department of Water Resources) will say a lot about what happens in rural southern Idaho for years to come.

Sale at Medford and Ashland

The eventual sale by Ottaway Newspapers of their holdings in Oregon - the Mail Tribune at Medford and the Daily Tidings at Ashland - has been in the wind for a while. Now it's more definitive.

Ottaway is owned by Dow Jones Company (most famously the publisher of the Wall Street Journal), which is about to be swallowed by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Murdoch apparently wanted to shed the "community newspapers" anyway; today comes a report that the current Dow Jones managers are looking at a quicker selloff of their remaining Ottaway papers (down to eight nationally after a partial selloff last year).

Ottaway seems to have been a relatively hands-off owner, and the Medford and Ashland papers have had significant leeway in their operations. To watch for: Who turns out to be the new owner, and what kind of profit margins that owner will be expecting.


John Nelsen

John Nelsen

The short list of Oregon House seats sought after for '08 by Democrats includes almost as a matter of course the seat in District 49, which sits on the northeast edge of the Portland metro area - Fairview, Gresham, Wood Village.

There are good reasons. It's part of the Portland metro area, after all. While more Republican than most of the Portland area, it votes for some Democrats, including its current state senator. It has been the home district to Representative Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, but in 2006, while she was House speaker, she had a close call even while spending and organizing very hard; and a somewhat close call two years before that. And Minnis has had some reservoirs of personal popularity. This has the look of a district that could switch sides next year.

Responsibility for making sure it doesn't apparently will fall to John Nelsen, chair of the school board in the Reynolds School District (at Fairview), and a program director at Mount Hood Community College. (Running for re-election this May, Nelsen was unopposed in the district.) His announcement press release was home-based, focusing on schools and crime in east Multnomah; not a bad approach.

First impression is that he's a strong candidate. Two Democrats - Troutdale City Councilor Barbara Kyle first, then law student and former county commission staffer Nick Kahl - already have gotten in, an indication of the high interest Democrats have here. District 49 featured as among the hottest races of each of the last two cycles in Oregon, and the announcements so far suggest it could make it three in a row.

COMMENTARY We were really struck with the mindset of two commenters on the Oregon Catalyst post launching Nelsen. (This is not, of course, something Nelsen is in any way responsible for.) The first commenter said, "East county, especially Rockwood needs to start rounding up the illegals and sending them home. I think everyone would be amazed at the drop in crime that would occur!" The second said in reply, "I am shocked that a hispanic man is not running for this posistion in little mexico, I mean hillsburito, I mean rockwierd, I mean gresham."

Exacting change?

There's never - really, going all the way back - been the sense that Idahoans have been a politically contended electorate, that they're happy with government the way it is . . . or has been, at most any point.

Which makes fascinating the question Democratic Senate candidate Larry LaRocco highlights in this recent speech to partisans, a question he said his wife urges him to lead with: "The question is, Do you want change, or not?"

In his speech, LaRocco says he expects to have day-worked about 30-40 jobs around the state during this campaign; he's already clocked many of them. He notes that his two terms in the House would give him some automatic seniority on entering the Senate, and that unlike the opposition (presumably Republican Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch), he's a veteran.

But this thing comes down to that matter of whether Idahoans are simply dissatisfied and let it go at that, or whether they choose to act to change their political environment.

In most places, when voters are dissatisfied and want change, they vote for the party not in power, to shake things up. In Idaho, that would seem to mean a shift from time to time at least from the Republicans who have been in near-total power in the state for the last 13 years, to Democrats. Such shifts have happened in recent years in Montana and Colorado, among other places. But not in Utah, and not in Idaho. While the city of Boise (up to the city limits) has shifted blue, there's been to this point remarkably little evidence of significant shifts elsewhere. (A little, at McCall-Cascade, at downtown Idaho Falls and Coeur d'Alene, debatably at Lewiston, but still scant.)

Up to now, the evidence has been that the operative voting majority would rather complain passively - would rather, in the old phrase, point a middle finger at government rather than try to use it to change anything wrong or to accomplish anything useful. (The usual, and very frequent, rebuttal to that idea is that government is never useful - you hear that a lot in Idaho, and it's an important part of what's going on.)

LaRocco's gamble this campaign has to be that a significant group of Idaho voters moves this time from passive to active. If they are, he has a real shot. But that will mean breaking with the patterns that have been ever more firmly locked into place.

Unofficial stenography

This is a little old, but we just ran across it, and it should not pass without note: The proud assertion that a newspaper will run stories about malfeasance in government if and only if the "proper authorities" declare that, yes, they'd malfeased.

Coeur d'Alene has had more than its share of unfounded loose talk of late (you can track some of that in the excellent Huckleberries blog). But this paragraph in a November 7 Coeur d'Alene Press editorial jumps out at you:

If critics of the Coeur d'Alene City Council, Lake City Development Corp., Kroc Community Center, Mickey Mouse Retirement Village or any other publicly financed entities have proof of unethical or illegal activities by officials, produce it and let the proper authorities do their jobs. The Press will publish the outcomes of any such investigations upon their completion. In the meantime, our reporters will not be writing stories on allegations or speculation. Doing so would be an effective way to ruin an individual's or organization's credibility without due process, and we're positive even the critics don't want that.

Our job, the paper is saying, is to be stenographers of the officially-sanctioned story: Far be it from us to do any independent investigation, to try to determine any truths on our own. We'll happily stick with press releases.

A hat tip on that to the Whitecaps blog, which commented: "Read that again carefully. The Coeur d'Alene Press said editorially it will not publish stories demonstrating unethical or illegal activities by officials unless the 'proper authorities' conduct an investigation and make the results public. Who would the 'proper authorities' be? The Mayor? The City Council? The LCDC Board? The Board of Directors of Mountain West Bank? The prosecuting attorney? Advertisers? Who? I wonder if it occurred to the editor and publisher of the Coeur d'Alene Press they have just said they will take reportorial direction from the 'proper authorities?' How can readers not reasonably conclude that if the 'proper authorities' want a story killed, it's killed."

In what's becoming a one-newspaper town, it evidently will be.