King County Metro bus service has been in decline for years due to diminishing revenues, partly from declining sales taxes, and from the passage of Tim Eyman’s first blockbuster initiative (well, the second after the anti-affirmative action I-200), I-695 in 1999, which did away with the excise tax on car tabs that had been keeping Metro afloat since 1976, reducing the car tab fees to a maximum of $30. Gov. Christine Gregoire—then the state attorney general—supported the initiative; a press release from Gregoire’s office stated that "’Our challenge was to distinguish between various monetary charges in a way that is consistent, principled and legally sound,’" Oh yes, “principle” again. “For purposes of I-695, the AG memorandum concludes that increases in charges for traditional governmental activities or services–such as fees to ride a ferry or use a state park–are subject to voter approval.” It seems that Gregoire had her eye on the governorship, and was cynically playing to populist sentiment. The short-sightedness of such a view is only now drawing more into focus, with Metro expecting a $315 million shortfall in revenue over the next two budget cycles. The state legislature voted to allow King County the authority to tack-on an additional $20 to the car tab fees in order to raise revenue to maintain a minimal level of bus service.
I sent an email to the King County Council about my concerns about the further reductions in bus service; I received a reply from four Democrats on the council—Larry Phillips, Larry Gossett, Bob Ferguson, Joe McDermott—who expressed appreciation for my support for the need of the car tab increases. I did receive one response from one of the “non-partisan”—the current euphemism for “Republican” in King County—members of the council, Kathy Lambert, through a staffer. Lambert’s district is so conservative that the last time she ran opposed was in 2001. Her message was as follows:
“Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding Executive Constantine’s proposed vehicle license fee increase for Metro bus services. Councilmember Lambert greatly appreciates hearing your direct feedback about the proposal. She has listened to input from citizens and reviewed the state authorizing legislation. Councilmember Lambert is not in favor of the Council approving a “councilmatic” increase in the vehicle license fee.
The current cap on vehicle license fees was set by a vote of the people, and she wants to respect that vote. Because the cap was set directly by the people, she feels any changes to the cap should also be decided directly by the people. Consequently, Councilmember Lambert will be supportive of sending the vehicle license fee increase to the ballot if legislation proposing this is introduced. She feels it is important to give the citizens of King County the opportunity to decide if they would like to increase their vehicle license fees.
By sending the proposal to the ballot, citizens will have the opportunity to evaluate information on the costs of Metro service, the distribution of bus routes throughout the County, the revenue shortfall, the status of the Transit Now sales tax increase that was approved in 2006, and the bus service changes that will happen even if the proposed vehicle license fee is approved as it is just a temporary two-year fee. Voters will then be able to weigh the individual costs of a vehicle license fee increase in their household with the Metro services that would be temporarily maintained as a result of the fee. If this proposal comes to the ballot, she hopes that everyone will have time to make an educated decision about the fee increase.”
Councilmember Lambert’s position mirrored her fellow Republicans', so I need not have heard from them. What exactly is she saying here? For one thing, we may ask “Isn’t making these kind of decisions what the voters paid her to do?” Or is it that right-wing voters in fact pay her to do precisely as little as possible? We can read between the lines of this act of political cowardice: It should be left to “the people” who clog the roads and pollute the air to decide if THEY want to raise the car tab rates. I once overheard an older gentleman say "Why should I vote for this school levy? I don't have any kids in school.” This is the typical attitude of people who believe others less monied should “fend for themselves”—it isn’t our “problem,” and we don’t see what the “problem” is anyways; it doesn’t exist, as far as we can “see.” Lambert mentions a sales tax increase in 2006, as if it was raining money on Metro; the sales tax applied to mass transit went up from 0.8 cents to the legal maximum of 0.9 cents. Over the past several years sales tax revenue across the board has declined, contributing to the current Metro shortfall; so what is Lambert’s “point?” There is none except to cast “suspicion” on Metro’s use of funds, despite all the evidence of steadily eroding level of service because of route cuts and driver layoffs. Lambert also hypocritically insinuates that even if the tab fees are passed, it won’t make any difference because it is a two-year fix, and Metro will end-up making cuts anyways. As usual with Republicans, she implies that this is merely a wasteful “stimulus” package; what she doesn’t suggest is that the economy will likely improve enough after two years that sales tax revenue will rebound.
But regardless of her motives, Lambert and the rest of the Council’s right-wing seems to believe that mass transit, which the many people rely on for their transportation needs because of inadequate means, is merely another part of “big government” that needs to be squashed—and there are a lot of voters who feel the same way. This is a measure of how ideology is more important than “community” for many people, mostly on the political right. The vote sending the tab increase to defeat was postponed, apparently because the council’s right-wing didn’t want to be manhandled by members of the public embittered by utter lack of understanding of the issues exhibited.
Of course, we see similarly problems with dealing with reality in the other Washington. Instead of making the common sense choices that most reasonable people know must be made, people like the Koch Brothers and their little monstrosity—the Tea Party “movement”—have set the agenda and made a quivering fear freak of House Speaker John Boehner. It is fascinating to see this man, who apparently has a drinking problem and has a habit of crying on command, claim that Barack Obama isn’t taking “charge” of the debt problem, when in fact he is the 99-pound weakling who wilts before the Tea Party, and appears utterly incapable of persuasion. On Rush Limbaugh’s radio show the other day, he literally broke down in tears (again), whining how Obama was making things too tough for him. Oh please, Mr. President, why can’t you make things easy for me, and agree to everything THEY want? The problem with the Tea Party “plan” is that they only want the poor and their safety net programs to suffer; the put-upon rich are not to be discomfited in any way.
With few exceptions, Republicans want to play political games with the nation’s wellbeing--with the Tea Party, in keeping with its "principle" of governance by corporate sloaganeering, immune from such ideas as cause and effect (and truth or consequences); they only want a temporary debt ceiling increase, to expire early next year, giving Republicans plenty of time to use it as a political football in the 2012 election year. Worse, the tacked-on balanced budget Constitutional Amendment requirement for the second increase,which has no chance of passing, shows the Tea Party's cart-before-the-horse mentality. This is not a "plan," it is an advertisement. But not everyone in the Republican Party is a blinded-by-ideology Tea Party member, can they? Sen. John McCain called out Fox News' serial liar Sean Hannity on his Tea Party-influenced propaganda concerning the debt issue; Hannity, after spouting some anti-Obama conspiracy theories on the debt discussions, dared McCain to say he was "wrong," and McCain did; on the other hand, McCain lied himself when he claimed that Obama didn't have a "plan"--remember the "grand bargain"?--and after agreeing to disagree on a number of topics with Hannity, McCain did remember that Obama was to blame for the entire national debt, after all:
HANNITY: Look, I just want to make sure that we are on the same page in this regard, the president caused this problem, not the Tea Party.
MCCAIN: I totally agree.
HANNITY: The Tea Party supported "Cut, Cap and Balance." I just want the responsibility, this president is not leading.
MCCAIN: The Tea Party I admire, respect and appreciate and they're the once that gave us the majority in the House of Representatives, so we can get something done. I'm proud and appreciative about them."
This a day after McCain referred to a Wall Street Journal editorial comparing the Tea Party to a bunch of "Hobbits." I guess nothing has changed after all; McCain the "maverick" was just a temporary deviation for this groupthink coward, turned into a jellyfish by a Fox News blowhard who deals in misinformation and lies. It took the phone-hacking scandal in Britain to dent Rupert Murdoch' control of the political debate there; what will it take for Americans to realize that the political debate is at least on one side controlled by similar forces?
On the other side, Rep. Paul Ryan tried to muster support for a "less" draconian measure than the Tea Party people wanted not by relying on their common sense (they have none), but more attacks on the president. Perhaps if Boehner tried the bi-partisan approach in the House, maybe something could happen; he’d probably lose his job, but at least would have been the proper—which in this case amounts to the courageous—thing to do.
Wake-up and smell the truth, people. Remember there was a surplus in Bill Clinton’s last budget—not because of Republican budget cutting, but because of the tax “adjustment” passed in budget reconciliation by the Democrats before the Republicans took over in 1994—that for some strange reason did not prevent a robust economy and 22 million in net job creation. In 2001, the CBO forecast that if the Clinton fiscal policies were continued, the national debt would be reduced to $2.3 trillion by 2011. Instead, we have a $14.3 trillion debt. Now what was that some Republican told us: “Deficits are good.” Our debt problem isn’t the fault of Obama, “Mr.” Hannity, but short-sighted Republican policies that benefited exclusively their wealthy backers. A close look at the Pew Center’s examination of the reasons for the exploding deficit last April suggest that Bush administration policies are responsible for as much as 70 percent of the current debt—and will continue to haunt the country’s fiscal regime.
As for Obama, it is not that he doesn’t have a “plan,” and has continuously punted the ball to Congress. The problem is that since Day One, the right-wing has run a non-stop campaign seeking to destroy Obama that has had a clear effect on the public, regardless of how “open-minded” they might claim to be; too many have drunk it all in, with the media’s help. Republicans did not respect the fact that Obama had a mandate for “change,” and they were rock-solid in the efforts to oppose any policy that he offered. With conservative Democrats an additional headache, Obama had little choice but to say “This is what we need to do. If you don’t like my idea, than give me yours.” It was easy to be frustrated with Congress acting like spoiled children, first in the Senate, and now in the House. Obama’s principle problem, as I see it, is that he isn’t the “tough guy” war leader that George Bush portrayed himself as, which apparently impressed a lot of people, and he tries too hard to speak to people like adults, and appears easily frustrated when it is clear that he is speaking to children. Unlike Bill Clinton, who “feels your pain,” Obama tries to reason with people, to no avail.
Whether in this Washington or that Washington, the only difference in the mendacity is one of scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment