Kitsap Caucus

If the 2014 congressional election started today (I found a page showing incumbent Congressman Derek Kilmer has raised $15.55 so far. I’m guessing the total is actually more than that, but we have nothing official yet.) here is a campaign charge you might hear.

“Derek Kilmer has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.”

Or maybe this one:

“Derek Kilmer has voted with Nancy Pelosi nine out of 10 times.”

Both quotes are true, but they lack context. There have been 30 votes in the U.S. House of Representatives since Kilmer joined it earlier this month. Some are procedural and don’t deal with issues at all, like voting to approve Congress’ journal or to adjourn. If either of those mattered we might hear this one:

“Doc Hastings was the only Washington member of Congress with the guts to vote to adjourn.”

We’ve addressed this before, but it’s worth repeating. Context matters. Of the 30 votes taken in Congress, the two parties agreed with each other 11 times. Again, those were procedural issues. The first vote after the roll call was on who should be named House speaker. Republicans voted for John Boehner. Kilmer voted with Democrats for Nancy Pelosi. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Kilmer is a Democrat, after all, and he wanted to see his party’s leader holding the gavel. Everyone knew it wouldn’t happen and it didn’t.

On the other 19 votes, many were questions on the same issue, and Kilmer agreed with the majority in his party on all but one of them.

That one is critical. Of the 30 votes taken, two were considered “key votes” in the Washington Post vote database. One was the race for speaker. I guess I agree that one probably should be considered “key,” but not like the other one on the list of two. That was the one to suspend the debt limit until May and to suspend Congressional pay starting April 15 if there is no budget. On that one a majority of Republicans voted “Yes,” and a majority of Democrats voted “No.” Kilmer, in this case sided with Republicans. He issued a statement saying why he thought the measure was a good one.

“I believe America should pay its bills even if they were racked up before I came to DC. This plan prevents the immediate threat of default that could cause harm to our nation’s economy. Hopefully, this is the first step toward a real bipartisan effort to forge a balanced solution to our long-term fiscal challenges. This plan also forces Congress to live by the same principle that all folks in our region live by: if you don’t do your job, you shouldn’t be paid. I’m supporting this bill today because I’ve always said I’ll do what’s right for the families and employers of our region, regardless of whether it’s a Democratic or Republican idea.”

Kilmer wasn’t alone among Washington Democrats, joining fellow freshmen Denny Heck and Suzan DelBene. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Camas Republican, voted contrary to her party on the same vote.

Just as it’s almost worthless to draft statistics that include meaningless votes on procedure, it’s way too early to form conclusions on a voting record that only includes two votes that seem to matter. Nonetheless, stay tuned to the “key” votes tally and see if bipartisanship spreads.

“It’s our country. It’s our debt. We are all responsible. We can’t just sit around waiting for government to fix this.” — Scott Soucy | Middletown, Del.

Eli Saslow at the Washington Post has a story about a guy, Scott Soucy, with a proposal to pay down the national debt. He believes each of us, including businesses, can take care of the national debt on our own. The simple explanation is you donate $1 every paycheck and businesses donate $1 for every transaction over $10. Personally, I think the paycheck proposal is easier to swallow than the business one.

There is a group looking to have a place on your tax form you can designate to donate to the debt. Before I found the site, I looked at the 1040 form and there is not a space specifically designated for that. You can give $3 to the presidential campaign fund, but not for the debt. You can send the IRS a separate check with your return if you like, but how many people are actually mailing hard copy tax forms anymore?

If you want to help pay off the debt, Pay.gov has a page, Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt, where you can donate online.

Obviously, if you’re convinced government has more of a spending problem than an income problem, you might not be motivated to do something like this. However, the fact that it’s voluntary might have some appeal even to fiscal hawks.

There are legion stories about government spending money it doesn’t have, the most glaring example being our entering a war we that didn’t cost us a single extra tax nickel now. It was the first time we ever did that. We got into debt for other wars, but we at least paid for some of each with additional taxes.

Complaining about that, though, has yet to do anything to solve the debt trouble we are in. At least Soucy is seeing the problem as his own. I think there is probably much to fault in his specific plan, but he is not waiting around for someone else to come up with a better idea. He’s taking on the challenge now and encouraging others to do the same. If 220 million other people felt that same level of accountability we might actually solve the problem.

It may come down to 220 million people like me realizing that however little blame I am willing to accept for the overall problem, I benefit from federal spending any time I cross the Manette Bridge.

According to CNN people donated nearly $8 million to pay down the debt in fiscal 2012, more than double the donations from earlier years. It’s a groundswell, but it’s far from 220 million. No wonder, then, there is little movement in solving the fiscal cliff issue. American leaders are taking their cues from us. Almost everyone involved is waiting for someone else to budge.

I always suspected this about cats. This comes from sodahead.com.

Four years ago I relied much on the RealClearPolitics website to find a broad mix of stories related to the political noise of the day. Who knew that four years later the site would still be my most valued source on national issues at a time when hot sites become relics within weeks?

I found two pieces today that offer reasoned (a rare adjective these days) discussion on what Romney said. And to be clear, I believe what Romney described as “not elegantly stated” should more accurately be described as “as wrong calling a cat a fascist.” That is, the 47 percent he named, those who don’t pay income tax, are not all the “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

That said, it has opened a conversation about the fact that 47 percent don’t pay federal income taxes. And that’s where Debra Saunders is taking us when she says,

“…the result is an America in which close to half of voters can support any scheme designed to expand the scope of federal government, secure in the knowledge that they likely will not have to pay for it.”

On the flip side, it is worth discovering why there is 47 percent not paying federal income taxes. It’s not just because of the snoozy economy. Steve Chapman, in an editorial that is (I’m warning you now.) highly critical of Romney and his statement, (The title, “Romney’s Dependancy Delusion” is a clue.) explains it this way, among others:

“Since 1990, the number of people getting Social Security benefits has risen by more than a third. That’s not because the government has suddenly enlarged the program in an effort to undermine self-reliance. It’s because there are more old people.”

RCP also links a Washington Post blog post by Aaron Blake, who says the gaffe probably won’t matter in November.

Which reminds me, the Atlantic Monthly has a graph showing historical evidence that Romney’s comment will have little impact on the election’s ultimate outcome.

Are you boycotting anything?

The nearest Chick-fil-A restaurant is 414.88 miles away in Boise. This may be a fun fact you can use if you have friends aiming to criticize you for not participating in today’s lovefest.

The event is in support of the company’s contributions to efforts to keep marriage between one man and one woman. The company’s owner disclosed that it does support those efforts. Boycotts and anti-boycotts began. Same goes on the other side for and against Amazon and Microsoft, whose leaders have contributed big money to the effort to support Referendum 74, confirming the Legislature’s move to allow gay couples to marry.

I texted a friend of mine about such a boycott. He lives in Washington and loves Chick-fil-A. I also know he supports gay marriage. I asked him if he would boycott, if such an option were available to us.

“Yeah, I would, though every purchase you make supports some cause that you’re usually aware of. Still, for a company chief to blatantly say that only his view of marriage is legitimate is insulting. I don’t want to put more money in his pocket,” he responded.

Other friends of mine posted on Facebook.

“Early dinner for Chick-fil-A day! and love that lemonade!”

“We support Chick-Fil-A!”

On the other side there is an effort to boycott General Mills products. You know, Cheerios.

A column in “The Week” questions whether boycotts work.

Your thoughts?

When there is limited press availability for certain events we resort to pool reports. It’s one occasion where competing news organizations cooperate with each other. One reporter gets assigned to cover the event and share notes with other press outlets. I loved the one we got from Thursday’s visit by President Obama. Read it and afterward I’ll share some other stuff about pool reports. Today’s report comes from Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times.

At Seattle’s Paramount Theatre, Pres. was introduced by Suzanne Black, a biology teacher at Inglemoor High School in Kenmore.

Ms. Black related how she was diagnosed in Mar. 2005 with stage 4 ovarian cancer. “Instead of writing tests or grading them I found myself facing one of the toughest of my life,” she said. After a long stint of chemotherapy she got a letter from insurer saying she’d already used about three fourths of her $1m lifetime cap of insurance benefits.

Three weeks later Obama signed the health care law, ending those caps. “So today I realized my dream of being able to say to someone who truly represents us — or as my students would say — someone who has my back President Obama – thank you.”

The President entered to a standing ovation and lengthy applause from the crowd of 2000. He called Black’s story the kind of thing you “don’t read in newspapers.” He recognized most of the Democratic electeds on hand, including “soon to be Governor Jay Inslee.”

Like in his earlier speech, the president did not lead with gay marriage – he spoke mostly of the economy and the contrast between him and Republican Mitt Romney.

Pres. introduced Romney as “a patriotic American” who has raised a “wonderful family.” POTUS said Romney should “be proud of the success he’s had as CEO of a large financial firm” — drawing snickers from the crowd. But, POTUS said, Romney assumes that when CEOs get rich “the rest of us automatically do too.”

POTUS mocked Republicans as offering nothing new “There is nothing you’ve heard from them where you said ‘man, I didn’t think of that – that’s fresh, that’s new.”

Sticking to a theme of “moving forward,” POTUS contrasted his plans to spend money on infrastructure and education with the Republicans, who he said would rather just give tax cuts to the rich.

Finally, more than 22 minutes into the speech, POTUS got to the reddest (locally raised, grass fed) meat for the liberal crowd, declaring he would not “go backwards” on health care reform and abortion rights.

And he directly endorsed Washington’s gay marriage law, taking sides in the likely Nov vote on Ref 74. Pres. told the crowd: “We are moving forward to a country where every American is treated with dignity and respect, and here in Washington you’ll have the chance to make your voice heard on the issue of making sure that everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, is treated fairly.”

Much applause ensued.

After the half-hour speech, POTUS and motorcade zipped back south on I-5 to Boeing Field, and Air Force One lifted off just after 4 p.m. for California and the fundraiser at George Clooney’s house. I am told he is an actor who is sexy.

If you’re like me, it’s the ending that got me the most. I also liked the parenthetical comment within “red meat.”

Being with the Kitsap Sun, one of the smaller press outlets in the Puget Sound region, I’ve pretty much accepted that I probably won’t be invited to be the pool reporter at something like what we had today, a sitting U.S. President campaigning or visiting the area. If he comes to Bremerton it might be different, but as much as I’d love to do it, I’m not getting the nod for anything in Seattle. We do sometimes fight for that role when there is a particular local angle, but this occasion was not one of those.

I did get an invite to go see Air Force One land and take off. I would have loved to have done that. But it would have been the equivalent of journalism tourism. I saw the plane anyway. I saw a Tweet that the plan was taxiing at Boeing so I went outside and noticed there was no air traffic. Then a single jumbo airliner rose in the sky. I could tell it was white. I couldn’t quite make out the light blue, but I think I saw it. It made a turn and looked like it was going to Clooney’s house.

And not long after that I started seeing lots of airplanes. So I’m pretty sure I saw the president fly by and I didn’t have to endure the hassle of a Secret Service security check.

A fifth Republican announced today he’ll run for Congress in the 6th District.

Bill Driscoll, a former Marine who has also been in the forest products business, issued a statement saying he put $500,000 of his own money to put him even with Democrat Derek Kilmer’s “$350,000 in special interest money.” (For more about Derek Kilmer’s money, read our story from Monday.)

Driscoll’s statement says career politicians have failed, that he would focus on jobs, a strong defense, making sure veterans get the benefits they’ve been promised and balancing the federal budget.

Filing week begins May 14. The entire Driscoll statement follows:

(more…)

Recently I was awarded a scholarship for a two-day conference in Washington, D.C. to attend classes on the ins and outs of what the Citizens United decision means for politics, and how I can find data about campaign spending in this new arena.

On Saturday, though, I got a great primer from the group at “This American Life.” As usual, the one hour provides so much information without making you feel like you were sitting in a class. It’s as entertaining as watching “Breaking Bad.” If you’re into politics at all, or you just care about your country and your government, take the hour you’ll need to listen to this.

We had a story Monday on state Rep. Drew Hansen, D-Bainbridge Island, having written a book on the “I have a dream” speech and his assignment to introduce a House resolution honoring King. Here is the speech Hansen delivered, in which he states he makes the case that King’s losses offer moments as instructive as his victories.

Congressional redistricting appears to be close to a real proposal within the state’s redistricting commission. Slade Gorton and Tim Ceis said they have a proposal ready and will provide drawings at 11 a.m. Wednesday.

Don’t be surprised if there is a significant change in what was proposed earlier, but it’s worth noting that all four proposals had the entirety of Kitsap County in District Six, currently represented by Congressman Norm Dicks of Belfair.

Currently the county is pretty much cut in half between the Sixth and First districts, with the Firsties being represented by Congressman Jay Inslee, who wants to be governor. That candidacy was likely what opened the door to combining all of Kitsap into one district. Perhaps it shouldn’t have mattered, but these lines are not completely drawn without consideration for where the incumbent lives.

In California, it appears, efforts to depoliticize the process may have failed this time around, with Democrats figuring out how to game the system while Republicans sat on the sidelines. An extensive ProPublica report tells how.

Though all four proposals initially had the entirety of Kitsap in one district, moving parts in one place requires moving them elsewhere. So some of the county, particularly Bainbridge, could find itself aligned with a Seattle-area district again.

Legislative maps that earlier included a call for uniting Bainbridge with Port Townsend should be out later in the week. The deadline is Saturday, or else it goes to the state Supreme Court.

National political conventions haven’t mattered since 1980, when the Democrats fought over rules about whether delegates should be locked in. Even then, the outcome seemed pretty certain, as it has in every convention since then and for quite a while before.

That could change this year, according to a piece written by Michael Medved in The Daily Beast. In the column, Republicans, Dissatisfied with Their Presidential Field, Dream of Deadlock, Medved contends there is a slight chance the GOP nominee might not be picked until the actual convention. Among the reasons is the lack of a true “Super Tuesday” this year and fewer states operating with a winner-take-all formula.

Of all the things Medved says, this to me is the most true:

This outcome appeals to all media outlets (which would relish the high drama and corresponding high ratings) as well as party organizers who would welcome the engagement of the grass roots in a fiercely competitive race and a visibly open convention.

I salivate at the prospect of a convention that matters. I asked my company to send me to both conventions in 2008, even offering to take a bus and find homes to crash in. The response from my bosses was that conventions are scripted infomercials. They were right. I don’t plan on repeating the request this year, but I’ll enjoy the festivities much more.

Where I disagree with the headline is that this is happening because Republicans are dissatisfied. While true that there probably is a lack of enthusiasm for any candidate other than Ron Paul, if party members were generally excited about more than one candidate the same scenario could exist. The truth is no one has managed to pull away. (Again, like I’ve said before, that’s an interesting expectation to have when there hasn’t been even a single caucus or primary.) The point is that the race is even enough that this next year offers the most promise we’ve seen in years that a primary process might not deliver a clear winner.

Here are a few items of interest to a post-Thanksgiving America. Excuse me, while I kiss this guy.

The Seattle Times reports the U.S. Department of Justice believes the Seattle Police Department’s policy of letting officers refuse to incriminate themselves is too broad and is applied to too many situations.

The Washington Post reports on an effort to get a middle-ground candidate on the 2012 ballot. The biggest question for me is raised in the story. Who is out there now who would be willing to sign on to this as a candidate running against someone else in the same party. Only someone with nothing to lose, methinks. That means someone who either doesn’t have a prayer of ever winning anyway, or someone who doesn’t care whether the party members get mad. A national version of Tim Sheldon, perhaps.

Obama’s campaign operation is working somewhat quietly in Chicago. The Washington Post reports on some of the pros and cons of being in Chicago and details a few of the efforts the group is undertaking.

If you have time to sit by a computer and read news stories between now and dinner on Thursday, allow me to recommend just two. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Thanksgiving holiday and the one story I did read about the holiday was boring. I saved you from it. These two are interesting looking ahead to next year, all next year.

First off comes the Washington Post story on Newt Gingrich’s candidacy. He has two things Conservatives hate: an affair with Freddie Mac and a woman who became his wife; and yet he is in the lead. The reason? People see him winning in November.

In The Daily Beast Michael Tomasky lays out “How Obama Can Get to 270 Electoral Votes.”

Now that the Super Committee assembled to work out a deal on debt has officially fizzled, I thought I’d give you a list of stories worth reading. Only one deals with the Super Committee itself.

The New York Times has a blog item offering reasons why politicians on both sides may have been thinking the collapse of the Super Committee would be a good idea. Capitalizing on Collapse.

The New York Times also offers this story, Older, Suburban and Struggling, ‘Near Poor’ Startle the Census, about the growing number of people who are not far from qualifying as impoverished. Many bristle at the term “near poor,” but the data is telling.

We’re fans of public records in our circles. So it’s an easy pick for me to deliver this story from The Seattle Times, Seattle police must pay $129K for records delay. According to the story the Seattle PD has a history of stalling or denying requests on records in large part because of agreements with the police union.

The Seattle Times also reports that the state paid out $500,000 in a year for 2,000 cell phones that were not being used. State wasting big money on idle cellphones

And yet another entry from the Seattle Times. This one shows how the Legislature makes cuts in the state budget, cuts that never happen because the courts overrule legislators. As state makes cuts, lawsuits are flying

The News Tribune offers a story about a man who cost taxpayers millions, but their effort eventually helped him get better. Cecil’s story: Man who cost Tacoma taxpayers millions for care, emergency services, is sober

Shane Stoops, 23, is among those involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York City. He was profiled in an MSN photoblog and describes himself as a “nomad” and “renaissance man” from Port Orchard, Wash. He is also handing out resumes while in New York.

The movement is in broad terms a criticism of corporate America and its power. Jon Stewart compares the group with the Tea Party, and some of that comparison is apt. Those joined in the effort clearly have an ideological slant, but they are reluctant to be identified with one of the major parties.

State Sen. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, offers a counterpoint to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s assertion that he’d like to make the federal government as inconsequential as possible.

“I’m struggling to figure out how a person can be the Chief Executive of a government he doesn’t understand the value of.”

I’ll leave it to you to discern why Kilmer is answering a national politician on a federal issue.

We have a new poll question for you. Warren Buffett, a super-rich man himself, said people in his class should be taxed more. He points out that he pays a lower tax rate than people making, say, $200,000 a year. That claim is determined to be true by PolitiFact. If you really want to did into tax code issues, you should also read the PolitiFact’s treatment of John Cornyn’s statement that 51 percent of Americans paid no federal income taxes in 2009. That was also determined to be true. Cornyn is a Republican senator from Texas.

The PolitiFact pieces are great, because though each statement is true, there is context to each worth considering.

This is America. Please vote.

In covering the Suquamish same-sex marriage story, there were a few conversations that happened after deadline had passed. The story itself appears to be more of symbolic value than anything practical for now, because we haven’t heard of anyone banging down the doors of the tribe’s offices to actually get married.

Even Heather Purser said she just wants that option should she choose to get married later.

Where the story takes on some importance that could matter later is its place in the same-sex marriage movement generally and specifically among Indian tribes.

Brian Gilley, associate professor of anthropology at Indiana University, said the Suquamish Tribe is probably only the second federally recognized tribe to recognize same-sex marriage.

Some of the news that spread Tuesday was that most tribes don’t address it. That might be true, but a large number of tribes have actually passed measures similar to the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act. That act doesn’t outright ban same-sex marriage, but it defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Suquamish Tribe’s willingness to take a different path than tribes nationally is in line with what tribes in the Pacific Northwest do, Gilley said. “It’s just sort of been their history to be different than the rest of Indian country,” he said.

Part of that, he said, is because the stakes are different for them here than they are in other parts of the country. The culture that surrounds the tribe and the possible consequences are different in Washington than they are, say, in Oklahoma.

The issue was huge within the Cherokee nation when two women received an application for a marriage license and were actually married, but then the tribe denied them the opportunity to actually register their marriage certificate. During that time is when Indian Tribes across the country created their DOMA-like standards.

Gilley figures largely in a story published on the Indian Country Media Network website. The writer says gay couples were not uncommon within tribes until Indians began adopting religious principles taught (or demanded of) them by the white people.

Leonard Forsman, Suquamish tribal chairman, said the issue that reached finality Monday wasn’t that big a deal. He confirmed Purser’s recollection that there was no opposition. That the ordinance change proceeded slowly was more a fact that other issues took precedence, not that there were any real naysayers.

“We had an existing marriage ordinance under code. It had to be updated. We’ve got a lot of ordinances that need updating,” he said.

Forsman said he hasn’t seen much written and there isn’t much oral history about same-sex couples in Suquamish history. That seems to be the case in other tribes, that there isn’t much institutional memory of same-sex couples, but backers of a “two-spirit” movement contend they had their role within the community. That fact that there may not be much tradition or oral passed along could be because tribes didn’t see it as a big deal until their new religious beliefs cast negative light on them.

Forsman said that might be why there isn’t much said in Suquamish history. “I think that tells us that it was not anything that was extremely abnormal or judged in the past,” he said.

One question that remains is whether a marriage of a gay couple will, in fact, be recognized in Washington. The state doesn’t marry same-sex couples, but it recognizes those marriages performed elsewhere. The question then becomes whether Suquamish, in this case, is “elsewhere.” It will take someone actually getting the Suquamish marriage to test that out.

Jose Antonio Vargas was part of the Washington Post reporting team that won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting of the Virginia Tech shootings and the first thing his grandmother said to him was, “Anong mangyayari kung malaman ng mga tao?” (What will happen if people find out?)

Vargas has been in the U.S. since he was 12. His mother sent him here from the Philippines to have a better life. It was a few years before he learned he was here illegally. At that point he became complicit, but he kept it hidden for a long time.

Not anymore.

He also managed to get help. And no one who ever knew about his status, including a worker at the Social Security Administration, ever turned him in to immigration authorities.

During his time here in the United States he has demonstrated an amazing record as an achiever.

This is a very interesting story that challenges assumptions of those who would send everyone back and those who would let everyone stay.

I’ve launched a poll. You answer it. Leave your thoughts here, including whether you think there is an option I have missed.

An interesting side note: He was able to buy himself eight years by getting an Oregon driver’s license. He bought five more by getting a license from Washington.

Another interesting side note: The story is in the New York Times because the Washington Post passed on it.

I recorded the conversation with U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, for the Sunday story on his position on U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. He is among Democrats and a few Republicans calling for a quicker withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I also asked him about Libya, Iraq and whether Anthony Weiner should resign. I cut about a minute and a half from the recording, but it’s still a bit more than 19 minutes long.

Norm Dicks on Afghanistan

Last week we asked if all that celebrating of bin Laden’s death was appropriate. If you want a little chuckle, guffaw or snort about it and the related crackpottery, you might enjoy Eric D Snider’s treatment of the subject. A taste:

There was no time for celebration in the country’s newsrooms, where the mood was intense and serious. After three years of being very careful not to write “Osama” when they meant “Obama” and vice versa, now journalists faced their worst nightmare: a news story that involved both men. TV anchors were required to say “Osama” and “Obama” in the same sentence. It was a situation fraught with peril. A few TV stations, newspapers, and websites made mistakes along the lines of “Obama says Obama is dead.” We assumed these flubs were the result of simple human error — except when they happened on Fox News, of course, and then we assumed they were deliberate.