Today, KUOW's Gang of Four began by discussing the recent Washington Supreme Court decision that the state should not decide which politicians were lying in their campaign ads. Somewhat to my relief, all four agreed with the decision, and Danny Westneat even worried, as I did, about how close the decision was (5-4).
The gang followed this by one of those meandering campaign discussions, focusing, as journalists almost always do, on the horse races. Ron Paul's recent success in fund raising appeared to please the group, presumably because they think that he will cause trouble for the Republican party. Eli Sanders of the Stranger, who was substituting for Knute Berger, had some interesting things to say about his interview with Jeb Bush. (I will not link to the Stranger, unless necessary, because I want to keep this site suitable for sprogs.) D. Parvaz felt it necessary to add that she really didn't care much for the Bush family, which will surprise no one who has read her work in the Seattle PI. In fact, I can't think of a single Republican that she does like.
From there, the gang moved to a discussion of the RTID-ST2, the proposal to spend billions on light rail and highways in this area. The four were depressed because the Democratic King County Executive, Ron Sims, had told Danny Westneat that he couldn't support the proposal — after not objecting to it for years while it was being put together.
On the whole, the gang's discussion of RTID was bizarre. None of them had anything significant to say about the costs of the proposal (which are much disputed). All of them are certain that light rail was the necessary component of the package, though even the proponents admit that the trains will carry a tiny fraction of the traffic. (It is, I must admit, still something of a mystery to me that so many are attached to this 19th century technology, which suited the cities of that time, but does not suit modern cities.) And none of them had anything to say about what should be the fundamental question for any transportation project: Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
I can't quite say that the discussion was innumerate — but it came awfully close to that sad condition. It is hard to discuss most issues intelligently without mentioning costs; it is impossible to discuss transportation issues intelligently without discussing costs.
Their discussion of the process that had led to this transportation mess was unintentionally revealing. They agreed that the political leaders had failed to make and execute a good plan over the last two decades — but they didn't blame any particular leaders (other than Sims), or party, though it is not difficult to figure out which leaders, and which party, deserve blame. Since the 1984 election Washington's governors have been Democrats. Seattle's mayors have been Democrats for far longer. The King County executive has been a Democrat since the 1993 election. Though all were critical of Sims, all seemed fond of him; Westneat even said that he loves Sims, which goes a bit far for my tastes. I don't think you have to be a Republican to suspect that the Gang of Four would have been able to assign blame if a different party had led this area, and this state, for the last two decades.
Near the end of their discussion, the gang came close to agreeing that the area needed a transportation czar, a benign dictator who would impose a solution on the voters of the area. Or at least that the elected officials should ignore public opinion and force a solution on the voters.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(The gang's grade this time was 0.05, again. Danny Westneat rescued them from a 0.0 by noting that George W. Bush may not have been lying, after Steve Scher had insinuated that Bush was. There were just a few callers; all had leftist views.
On the other hand, Westneat also claimed to be for the roads portion of the package, but in the past he has tended to favor fixing roads in reactionary Seattle, but not building new roads in the more progressive parts of the state, even when those new roads might reduce traffic deaths.
I did not hear any factual errors on this morning's program.
If you want to know a bit about the cost of the RTID plan, you might start with this critique of the plan.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 05, 2007 04:22 PM | Email This1) ST operates Express Buss service ~4,500 service hours/year that runs a route which duplicates the light rail to within one block.
2) Elected Tacoma and Pierce County officials and upper management have financial connections to, relatives heavily invested in and close business associates and contributors with financial interests in many of the development projects you see going on in Tacoma.
3) These include condo projects which Elected Tacoma and Pierce County officials have already granted ten-year tax abatement to. Which means that a person living in a modest home in Tacoma's west side is already paying for the fire, police, garbage and every other service for freeloaders who are living in $500,000 to $1,300,000 condos.
4) Part of the SELLING POINT that the sellers use is that there are MULTIPLE LAYERS of FREE (yes John Ladenburg pushed the "fare box" through so Tacoma Link light rail that was originally slated to have a cost to the riders is now "free") public transportation at the doorsteps of these condos.
5) What this entire fiasco amounts to is a massive transfer of money, under the direction of John Ladenburg and the rest of the Elected Tacoma and Pierce County officials and upper management, from the tax paying public to the benefit of themselves and those closely connected to them.
This is a scandal and a disgrace of the first order. This wasted bus service could be used to serve populations that are paying into the ST kitty but get NO BENEFIT from it. It is graft plain and simple and so long as it continues I will do everything in my power to ensure that ST does not get one more dime.
Posted by: JDH on October 5, 2007 04:52 PMThe Court plurality's decision boils down to the fact that appointed government regulatory committees cannot be the arbiters of political free speech under the First Amendment. Importantly, Justice James Johnson's plurality opinion notes that the unconstitutional apparatus for PDC review of political speech included neither a JURY TRIAL nor a standard mechanism for JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Washington law has long allowed for libel and slander lawsuits. Those are important causes of action. People have a right to defend and vindicate their own names and reputations. Ardent libertarians will go to the mat to defend a person's property in his or her own name. But in America, we've come to realize one must prove libel and slander to a jury. It may not be the perfect answer, but it's probably the best one. In any event, a jury is the constitutional answer. And the PDC isn't a jury.
Sen. Tim Sheldon is a good man. It's unfortunate that a desperate, fact-challenged opponent said some awful, FALSE things about his legislative record. But he has already been thoroughly vindicated by two subsequent elections. The people had the good sense to separate the true from the false. So on this one, forget the PDC.
Posted by: Seth Cooper on October 5, 2007 11:22 PMThe Court plurality's decision boils down to the fact that appointed government regulatory committees cannot be the arbiters of political free speech under the First Amendment. Importantly, Justice James Johnson's plurality opinion notes that the unconstitutional apparatus for PDC review of political speech included neither a JURY TRIAL nor a standard mechanism for JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Washington law has long allowed for libel and slander lawsuits. Those are important causes of action. People have a right to defend and vindicate their own names and reputations. Ardent libertarians will go to the mat to defend a person's property in his or her own name. But in America, we've come to realize one must prove libel and slander to a jury. It may not be the perfect answer, but it's probably the best one. In any event, a jury is the constitutional answer. And the PDC isn't a jury.
Sen. Tim Sheldon is a good man. It's unfortunate that a desperate, fact-challenged opponent said some awful, FALSE things about his legislative record. But he has already been thoroughly vindicated by two subsequent elections. The people had the good sense to separate the true from the false. So on this one, forget the PDC.
Posted by: Seth Cooper on October 5, 2007 11:23 PMExcellent post. It's continually amazing how few of the mainstream media want to engage in any meaningful debate with real facts or real costs. And all the while, they feign objectivity with a palpable arrogance.
It really comes down to enlightenment. As soon as any individual cares enough about something to use the Internet and many other sources outside of the Mainstream Media to truly determine the facts regarding any important issue, there is no contest on which way they will decide. And this is why the left and their parrots in the mainstream media have mounted such aggressive attacks on talk radio, and pine for new "Fairness" doctrines, etc.
The only way they can keep up their ruse is by praying that the average Joe won't bother to learn the facts.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 6, 2007 12:11 AMI though this was a conservative blog.
A deliberate lie is called slander. A deliberately printed lie is called libel. Those are (and should be) illegal. Just as deliberately yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected, neither can deliberately, knowingly lying about another person. That's actionable.
We're not talking about little kids denying breaking a lamp. We're talking about adults destroying a country's moral structure. (Yes, every country has a moral structure. Personally, I don't admire the Soviet Union's, nor Nazi Germany's.) If a candidate deliberately, willfully prints a proven lie about another candidate (or person), then that offending candidate should be prosecuted and incarcerated for a period not less than 5 years.
Posted by: cmiklich on October 6, 2007 11:14 AMNot telling you what you should do. Just food for thought.
Posted by: pudge on October 6, 2007 11:15 AMThe costs only are considered through 2027, however the lions share of the public's payment will occur after then. It LIES by omission. It shows only $14.1 billion as the cost through then, however that is only 10% of the cost, as the remaining $140 billion plus that will be collected from 2027 through 2057. Just look at Sound Transit's track record at being stewards of our money, if you are still entertaining possibilities of voting for this. As an alternate solution, I would propose light rail to the Eastside, but eliminate the rest - that will free up approx. $50 + billion between now and 2057 for roads - i.e. the 520 bridge and the Viaduct, neither of which Prop. 1 fully funds - something else the shiny brochure does not state. Don't get hood winked - this is BAD policy - Vote NO & make the lazies who spend our money this go back try again and do it until they get it right !
Posted by: KS on October 6, 2007 06:11 PMThe costs only are considered through 2027, however the lions share of the public's payment will occur after then. It LIES by omission. It shows only $14.1 billion as the cost through then, however that is only 10% of the cost, as the remaining $140 billion plus that will be collected from 2027 through 2057. Just look at Sound Transit's track record at being stewards of our money, if you are still entertaining possibilities of voting for this. As an alternate solution, I would propose light rail to the Eastside, but eliminate the rest - that will free up approx. $50 + billion between now and 2057 for roads - i.e. the 520 bridge and the Viaduct, neither of which Prop. 1 fully funds - something else the shiny brochure does not state. Don't get hood winked - this is BAD policy - Vote NO & make the lazies who spend our money on this go back and try again and do it until they get it right !
Posted by: KS on October 6, 2007 06:11 PM