King County Democrats August 17, 2010 Primary Endorsements

The following is a list of candidates endorsed by the King County Democratic Central Committee (KCDCC) for the  August 17, 2010 Primary Election

Position - Candidate

United States Senator - Patty Murray

United States Representatives:

District 1 - Jay Inslee

District 2 - Rick Larsen

District 7 - Jim McDermott

District 8 - Suzan DelBene

District 9 - Adam Smith

Washington State:

Legislative District 1, Position 1 - Derek Stanford

Legislative District 1, Position 2 - Luis Moscoso

Legislative District 5, Position 1 - Gregory Scott Hoover

Legislative District 5, Position 2 - Dean Willard

Legislative District 11, Position 1 - Zack Hudgins

Legislative District 11, Position 2 - Bob Hasegawa

Legislative District 30, Senator - Tracey Eide

Legislative District 30, Position 1 - Mark Miloscia

Legislative District 30, Position 2 - Carol Gregory

Legislative District 31, Senator - Raymond Bunk Dual Endorsement

- Ron Weigelt Dual Endorsement

Legislative District 31, Position 1 - Peggy Levesque

Legislative District 32, Senator - Maralyn Chase

Legislative District 32, Position 1 - Cindy Ryu

Legislative District 32, Position 2 - Ruth Kagi

Legislative District 33, Senator - Karen Keiser

Legislative District 33, Position 1 - Tina Orwall

Legislative District 33, Position 2 - Dave Upthegrove

Legislative District 34, Senator - Sharon Nelson

Legislative District 34, Position 1 - Eileen Cody

Legislative District 34, Position 2 - Marcee Stone

Legislative District 36, Senator - Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Legislative District 36, Position 1 - Reuven Carlyle

Legislative District 36, Position 2 - Mary Lou Dickerson

Legislative District 37, Senator - Adam Kline

Legislative District 37, Position 1 - Sharon Tomiko Santos

Legislative District 37, Position 2 - Eric Pettigrew

Legislative District 39, Position 1 - Eleanor Walters

Legislative District 41, Senator - Randy Gordon

Legislative District 41, Position 1 - Marcie Maxwell

Legislative District 41, Position 2 - Judy Clibborn

Legislative District 43, Senator - Ed Murray

Legislative District 43, Position 1 - Jamie Pedersen

Legislative District 43, Position 2 -Frank Chopp

Legislative District 45, Senator - Eric Oemig

Legislative District 45, Position 1 - Roger Goodman

Legislative District 45. Position 2 - Larry Springer

Legislative District 46, Senator - Scott White

Legislative District 46, Position 1 - David Frockt

Legislative District 46, Position 2 - Phyllis G. Kenney

Legislative District 47, Senator - Claudia Kauffman

Legislative District 47, Position 1 - Geoff Simpson

Legislative District 47, Position 2 - Pat Sullivan

Legislative District 48, Senator - Rodney Tom

Legislative District 48, Position 1 - Ross Hunter

Legislative District 48, Position 2 - Deb Eddy

King County:

County Council District 8 - Joe McDermott

City of Seattle - Municipal Court

Position 1 - Edsonya Charles Postponed 9/28

- Ed McKenna Postponed 9/28

Position 3 - Steve Rosen

Position 5 - Willie Gregory

Position 6 - Karen Donohue

JUDICIAL -

Washington State Supreme Court:

Justice Position 1 - Stan Rumbaugh

Justice Position 5 - Barbara Madsen (Chief Justice)

Justice Position 6 - Charlie Wiggins

Court of Appeals, Division 1, District 1 - Michael Spearman

Superior Court, Position 36 - Jean Rietschel

King County District Court

Northeast District, Position 6 - Michael Finkle

West District, Position 5 - Anne Harper

Shoreline District, Position 2 - Marcine Anderson

R1 Southeast District, Position 2 - Darrell Phillipson Dual Endorsement

- David Meyer Dual Endorsement

Southwest District, Position 2 - Susan Mahoney

Northeast District, Position 7 - Donna Tucker Triple Endorsement

- Larry Mitchell Triple Endorsement

- Ketu Shah Triple Endorsement

Southeast District, Position 6 - Matt Williams Dual Endorsement

- David Tracy Dual Endorsement

Chainsaws Again Threaten Old Trees at Ingraham High School

It was a long shot expecting the City of Seattle to come to the defense of the old trees at Ingraham High School. The Seattle School District also only sawthe trees as an impediment to their development plans. Now Seattle Hearing Examiner Ann Watanabe has also chose to ignore the evidence in the Hearing Record and Seattle City law requiring that priority be given to protecting uncommon plant and animal  habitat in the City of Seattle. She has denied the appeal by Save the Trees-Seattle to stop the 70 year old 100 foot tall eveegreen trees from being cut being cut down at Ingraham High School in North Seattle.

The decision is not yet posted on the Hearing Examiner's website.  When it is I will post a link here.

The environmental review now goes back to the King County Superior Court. We will be appealing the decision and it will  be up to the court to make a final decision. They previously issued a restraining order preventing the Seattle School District from cutting down the 70 year old 100 foot tall Douglas fir, western red cedar and Pacific madrone trees until the environmental review was completed by the City of Seattle. That has now been done.

In her most recent decision Seattle hearing Examiner Ann Watanabe chose to ignore testimony from Save the Trees - Seattle that alternative sites for building the school addition were available on the Ingraham campus and that the Seattle School District padded the cost for other sites by adding in features like an additional 2000 square foot entrance on designs for the North side. Of course this raised the cost for any North side addition. The Seattle School District's designs and cost estimates for alternative sites lacked credibility when closely examined.

Many of the issues raised were ignored by the Hearing Examiner.  One obvious early sign of the Hearing Examiner's limiting review of relevant issues was her upholding a preliminary motion by the Seattle School District to exclude testimony on wildlife by one of the witnesses we called, Kirk Prindle, a wildlife biologist who is a member of Seattle's Urban Forestry Commission. This was despite the submitting of new bird studies for the Seattle School District, which were included in DPD's file.

The Hearing Examiner ignored basic ecological considerations, as did the DPD and the Seattle School District. Groves of trees, particularly groves with conifers are not common in Seattle.  The particular association at Ingraham of conifers and madrone trees is an uncommon plant habitat in Seattle. The Hearing Examiner in her previous decision agreed with this. There are only about 52 acres total of conifer madrone forest  in all of Seattle, mostly at Seward Park. While there are scatterings of Douglas fir and madrone trees here and there in Seattle what is unique about Ingraham is that it is a 1.2 acre site and a grove of some 130 trees  rather than just a few trees.

The diversity of plants and animals in a grove is directly correlated with patch or grove size size.  The larger the patch size, the more diversity of plants and animals.  Because all of Seattle has been logged over, except for some 50 acres of old growth at Schmidt's Park, the Ingraham Grove represents some of the oldest trees in Seattle. This older growth and uncommon plant habitat should be saved.   City environmental law gives a priority for doing this.  Yet at Ingraham  High School, given the  viable option of saving the grove in it's entirety because alternative sites exist,  the Seattle Hearing Examiner has chosen not to. 

Unfortunately the so called Emerald City of Seattle has a policy that we will save trees unless they prevent the development potential of a site.  When this was mentioned by an employee of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development at a recent urban forest symposium on saving trees, the whole room broke out in spontaneous laughter. Yes it was said seriously but it is a joke obviously when  the absurdity of the policy sinks in.

Unfortunately the consequence is not a joke.  Seattle continues to lose trees, especially during development. Exceptional trees basically have no protection at any time because the whole process is complaint driven.  By the time you hear the chainsaw, it is too late to stop a tree from being cut down. So DPD's proposal is that since the current system doesn't save trees, let's scrap the law mandating  protection for old trees in the city altogether.  It's like BP after they weren't  able to initially stop the oil flow in the Gulf saying,  well this didn't work so lets just stop trying.

One way the city can get some control over continued tree cutting, especially old trees is to expand its current permit system, to require a permit  to cut down any tree over 6 inches in diameter on public and private property.  The  Seattle Department of Transportation already requires a permit before a tree can be cut down or even pruned if it is on the public right of way. Yet the DPD in their just released proposal for a new tree ordinance for the City of Seattle dismisses tree permits altogether and basically argues that we need to just encourage people to do the right thing and save trees by more public outreach and education.  Like this has worked.

What we need is a change of policy and priorities.  In the past people used to shot songbirds to eat.  Fashion also threatened the very survival of many bird speicies as birds were killed for their feathers to create lavish "fashionable" hats. Yet we changed public policy to end this absurd killing of birds for money and fashion.

Trees are no less valuable living life forms than birds. In fact birds need native trees and shrubs to survive.  Unfortunately trees are not mobile like birds. That makes them even more vulnerable. They are living entities of beauty and its an ecological necessity to protect them  if birds and insects and other species are to survive on our planet. Obviously the DPD's proposal is ridiculous to eliminate protection for trees, especially exceptional trees.

We require hunting licenses to kill various wildlife and populations are monitored to ensure that overhunting does not occur and a species is wiped out.  It's time to do the same for trees in our city.  Trusting that people will not cut down trees wantonly and drive species of associated animals and plants to extinction in our city should  not be left to chance and wishful thinking.

The current underegulated and unenforced tree protections are resulting in a continued decline of  our urban forest.  Most tree increases in recent years have been the short lived, small trees that get planted in the parking strips. The large trees and few remaining groves of trees continue to be cut down. Its time to change this. The interim ordinace passed last year limits tree cutting to 3 a year yet even this is not monitored or enforced.  Without permits and tracking of trees cut down we have no idea who is doing what. We see plenty of examples everyday however of trees being cut down.

Save the Trees-Seattle is working to stop trees being cut down in the city and come up with a workable new tree protection ordinance.  You can help support our efforts by making a contribution to Save the Trees-Seattle. Click on the donate button below to make a contribution of  $50 or $100 or or $25 or whatever you can so we can continue our efforts to save the trees in Seattle from the chainsaws.

You can also send a check to Save the Trees-Seattle, 2131 N 132nd St, Seattle, WA 98133.  Thanks.

Republican Hypocrisy on the Deficit

Republicans continue to harangue about the deficit but are hypocritical. Many of the continuing causes of the current Federal deficit are the direct result of actions espoused and supported by the Republicans.  These include the actions taken by the Bush Administration to wage 2 wars without new funding, pass new legislation to help people pay for prescription drugs without providing any new funding, pass  tax cuts for the wealthy that did not produce new revenue or jobs as a result and support a bailout for the economy in the final months of the Bush Administration.

Now they want to say it's all Obama's fault. The Republican game plan if elected will not be to make taxes fairer or increase revenue to cover existing programs.  It will be to use the deficit to further cut Federal programs that help the needy, the poor and less fortunate.  For example, they want to roll back the newly passed health care legislation which will reduce the donut hole on prescription drugs, prohibit health care companies from denying health care based on pre-existing conditions and roll back a program to have your children on your insurance through age 25.

But more importantly they want to re institute the Bush tax cuts which helped the rich keep more money in their bank accounts but did not increase jobs or income for most middle class Americans.  As Paul Krugman says in today's  New York Times,

"... flirting with crisis is arguably part of the plan. There has always been a sense in which voodoo economics was a cover story for the real doctrine, which was “starve the beast”: slash revenue with tax cuts, then demand spending cuts to close the resulting budget gap. The point is that starve the beast basically amounts to deliberately creating a fiscal crisis, in the belief that the crisis can be used to push through unpopular policies, like dismantling Social Security.

Reinstating the Bush tax cuts would cost another $650 billion or more according to Paul Krugman. He quotes Senator John Kyl of Arizona as saying that "... you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce taxes on Americans.". Senator Kyl is the second highest ranking Republican in the US Senate. The Bush tax cuts benefiedt the very wealthy, not middle class Americans. I guess Kyl would rather raise the age on social security recipients or cut health care for senior citizens instead. Or privitize your social security account so that corporations can profit at your expense. Who really thinks that average citizens can depend on the stock market for security?

Don't be fooled by the Republican noise machine. We know what life was like under the Republicans. Unless you're a millionaire or a corporation, history shows they are not going to help middle and lower income Americans. Voters would make a big mistake this November voting to return to the failed economic policies of the Bush years.

Obama, Democrats Score Another Victory with Passage of Financial Reform Bill

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress (with the help of a few Republicans) passed another piece of major legislation. Give credit where credit is due. Despite the never ending negativity of the Republican leadership, Democrats prevailed in passing a major bill to reform financial practices in America. The legislation is a significant reversal from past  policy decisions pushed by free market Republicans to deregulate the financial industry. These policies failed as demonstrated by our current depressed economy and loss of jobs.
 By a Senate vote of 60 to 39, Democrats overcame a continuing filibuster threat by the Republican leadership intent on trying to stop Congress from passing any reform legislation and then blaming Obama for not getting anything done. Voters this November need to keep in mind that it is the Democrats who are working to clear up the messes left by the last Republican Administration and that Republicans continue to obstruct needed change.

As the New York Times notes:

The vote was the culmination of nearly two years of fierce lobbying and intense debate over the appropriate response to the financial excesses that dragged the nation into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The result is a catalog of repairs and additions to the rusted infrastructure of a regulatory system that has failed to keep up with the expanding scope and complexity of modern finance.

The bill subjects more financial companies to federal oversight, regulates many derivatives contracts, and creates a panel to detect risks to the financial system along with a consumer protection regulator.

A more detailed analysis of some of the provisions of the legislation and comments by some NW Senators can be found on the NPI Advocate.

There's a great column in today's Seattle Times by Froma Harrop entitled "Don't forget who created this mess". I highly recommend people read it. (Unfortunately the column is not on the Seattle Times website yet).
Too much attention has been given to vocal strident anti-government protesters on the right. They are aligned with and being promoted by conservative Republicans who want back in power. As Harrop says:

But when they ask whether I want Republicans to take back Washington, I'll respond: "Are you out of your mind? We're still recovering from their last round of debauchery - their fiscal irresponsibility, servility toward wall Street, disrespect for science, contempt for the environment". ...
Dear readers, I'm a reasonable woman. I don't care much about ideology.  My bottom line is what's good for the country.  While the country is on a bad path, Republican voodoo is what put us on it.  Surely, many voters agree with me.

Only 3 Senate Republicans to put Financial Reform before Politics

Most US Senate Republicans are more intent on playing partisan politics than they are on doing their job and looking out for how to protect the American public from shady financial interests.  Too many in the financial community were more intent on making a fast buck than on providing the public with fair consumer practices and honest deals. Lack of adequate consumer safeguards contributed to our near financial disaster. 

We are still trying to recover. Most Republicans under their current leadership are more concerned about how to make President Obama look bad than they are on solving our financial problems. They are more intent on playing political games that they think will help them get back into power.

So when 3 Republicans show courage in bucking the do nothing approach of the Republican leadership, they are to be commended.  So far Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have said they will vote to prevent a filibuster from stopping passage of the proposed financial reform package.

 Despite the New York Times characterization of the bill as "limping toward Senate passage", I think garnering 60 votes in the US Senate is significant. My arithmetic saying that 60 votes is a hell of a lot more than 51 votes which would be a simple majority of  the US Senate.  The whole filibuster process stinks and its one of the factors contributing to the public low opinion of Congress. It's time to end the filibuster.

As the New York Times notes this bill will accomplish a fair amount:

The legislation would create a system risk council comprising the most senior government regulators to try to identify potential dangers in the financial system. It would create a powerful consumer financial protection bureau to be housed in the Federal Reserve and would impose a new regulatory framework on the trading of derivatives, the complex instruments that were at the center of the 2008 downturn.

The bill seeks to avert future crises by giving government regulators the power to seize control of failing financial institutions, break them apart, sell off the assets and put them out of business, with shareholders and creditors taking losses.

The bill would also strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission by giving it new authority over credit rating agencies , hedge funds and private equity companies.

Senator Cantwell Agrees to Support Financial Regulatory Bill

It seems Democrats in Congress are on the verge of passing another major bill. As reported in the New York Times today, its "a question of when - not if - according to Senate  Democrats." With most Republicans still plugging their ears and covering their eyes and ignoring the pressing problems facing this country, every Democratic vote is critical as 60 votes are necessary to prevent a filibuster in the Senate.

Senator Maria Cantwell had previously voiced her opposition to the bill because she was concerned that not enough was being done to address the financial risk of loosely or unregulated financial instruments like derivatives which had helped to contribute to the recent financial crisis.

Now the New York Times reports that:

Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, who originally opposed the regulatory overhaul, announced that she would support the final version. The move came after she received a letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission about provisions relating to new regulation of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that were at the heart of the 2008 crisis. Ms. Cantwell had been concerned about potential loopholes but said she was reassured that the bill would impose a tight regulatory framework

Final passage will still depend on several Republican votes appearing and probably a temporary replacement Senator being appointed to fill West Virginia's Senate seat held by Senator Robert Byrd who recently died.
The seat will be filled with a temporary appointment until a special election is held in November to fill the remaining two years of Byrd's term.

One glaring omission from the bill is the lack of oversight for car dealers by the proposed Consumer Protection Agency in the bill. It is unfortunate because after buying a house, cars are one of the major expenses of US households. This would have been a popular item with consumers. .

Loopholes in Washington State's Retirement System Need to be Fixed

It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative or liberal; Washington State's Retirement System needs radical changes to be credible. At a time when college tuition is being greatly increased, classes and programs are being cut, teaching professionals are being let go and money is not even available for many teaching fellowships for graduate students, some colleges and universities around Washington State have been rehiring back to their old jobs, people who have retired as state workers and allowing them to both be paid a salary and collect retirement funds.

As the Seattle Times reported on June 27, 2010, this process has resulted in a mockery of public funding of our higher education system. The example of just one Washington State University official shows why:

"Greg Royer ranks among the state's top-paid employees, with a salary of $304,000. But that's just part of his income. For nearly seven years, he's also collected an annual pension of $105,000.
Royer, the vice president for business and finance at Washington State University, tops a long list of college administrative staff members who've been able to boost their incomes by up to 60 percent by exploiting a loophole in state retirement laws.
A Seattle Times investigation has found that at least 40 university or community-college employees retired and were rehired within weeks, often returning to the same job without the position ever being advertised. That has allowed them to double dip by collecting both a salary and a pension. ...
A Times analysis of state payroll and retirement records shows that, as of the beginning of this year, about 2,000 people were collecting both wages and a pension from the state. In about two-thirds of those cases, however, retirees had returned to a state job on a part-time or on-call basis.
The Times found that 58 workers "including the 40 in higher education” had retired and been rehired full-time within three months. WSU and the University of Washington together accounted for 30 of those cases. A number of state agencies, most notably the Washington State Patrol, accounted for the cases outside of higher education."

Washington State's current state retirement system allows workers to retire with regular benefits at age 60 or after 35 years of service. It's easy to understand taxpayer's being angry when many are just looking for one salary to meet family needs. To allow state workers to game the system by double dipping, while cutting services and asking for more taxes is not acceptable.

Compare this with the headline in an article today in the Seattle Times that says for most workers, who are dependent on social security to make ends meet that "70 might become new retirement age".  Current retirement age for folks like me born between 1943 and 1954 is age 66.  For those born after 1960, it is 67. And as I understand it, if I earn over a certain amount each year when I retire, my social security benefits are cut.

Washington State legislators need to act now to reform the state retirement system.  While I am a strong advocate for the state funding essential public services like higher education, I am offended that the state continues to allow its retirement system to be abused. Washington state legislators need to correct this problem now!

As Ryan Blethan of the Seattle Times noted in an editorial in today's Seattle Times:

"More is expected of those who lead our public institutions, especially those who sit atop our colleges and universities. ..."

Blethan goes on to note that action needs to be taken and that we're not talking peanuts here.

"...there are about 2,000 double-dipping state employees, costing the state approximately $85 million annually. The Times investigation found some of these rehires happened within weeks and the positions were never advertised. A state employee can only be rehired after a month of retirement.
The problem seemed to slide by in healthy economic times even though it should not have. The Legislature needs to close the double-dipping loophole during the next session, even if that next session is a possible extra session.
Legislators do not have any other choice unless they are not serious about adjusting the state's budget to economic reality. If addressed quickly and aggressively this is low-hanging legislative fruit".

Britain Shows Leadership on Climate Change

Human impacts on our planet's life support systems are contributing to carbon dioxide buildup and climate change. Few countries are taking critically needed action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In a dramatic action the British government has made a hard political decision, putting our planet's welfare above continued unsustainable growth of airport traffic which contributes to climate change.

As reported in the New York Times today:

In a bold if lonely environmental stand, Britain’s coalition government has set out to curb the growth of what has been called “binge flying” by refusing to build new runways around London to accommodate more planes.
Citing the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative, abruptly canceled longstanding plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport in May, just days after his election; he said he would also refuse to approve new runways at Gatwick and Stansted, London’s second-string airports.
The government decided that enabling more flying was incompatible with Britain’s oft-stated goal of curbing emissions. Britons have become accustomed to easy, frequent flying — jetting off to weekend homes in Spain and bachelor parties in Prague — as England has become a hub for low-cost airlines. The country’s 2008 Climate Change Act requires it to reduce emissions by at least 34 percent by 2020 from levels reached in 1990

Here in Seattle meanwhile we opened a new third  runway at Seattle Tacoma International  Airport in 2008. As noted in a Seattle Times article in November 2008:

As the first jetliner takes off today on Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's new $1 billion third runway, state and local decision-makers are already debating where in Puget Sound to put a fourth runway or its equivalent.

While the current recession has slowed consideration of expanding air traffic, when the economy improves pressure will again  increase for continued expansion of regional airports. Alternatives to more  air traffic include expanding our rail transportation system.  Last year a news report from McClathydc.com reported that:

Washington state and California officials have held preliminary discussions about a high-speed, state-of-the-art rail line that would connect San Diego and Vancouver, B.C., with trains that could travel in excess of 200 miles per hour.

Certainly we have alternatives. These don't just include huge engineering projects and huge financial expenditures as more teleconferencing versus business trips as an example makes sense both environmentally and economically for businesses.

And horror of horrors, maybe people just not taking as many personal airline trips makes sense. Growth for growth sake is not the answer to living within our means without destroying our planet's life support systems.

Let's give a round of applause to Britain for acting with restraint. We need to do the same in planning for our future in the Northwest..