With little time I don’t write much anymore so here’s a dump on some of the latest…

I’ll start local.

Larry Haler…

I don’t know what has happened with our local Washington State Legislator Larry Haler (R-8th).  Once upon a time we had a reasonable, personable politician who despite the handicappings of having to work with other more hardcore R-types, always had a rationale that gave liberal folks like me a little hope that the fringe of either party doesn’t rule.  It seems I’m losing a little more hope each day.  First, Larry introduces/sponsors/whatever legislation to reel in medical marijuana. At first I thought there might be an argument and I sent him a note.  No reply.  This is a first.  I’ll have you know that this is the first time Larry hasn’t called me back after sending him an email.  And this legislation perplexes me.  It’s not that I ever thought that Larry was a person who supported medical marijuana or even it’s legalization.  But in an earlier conversation about last years decriminalization bill that was trying to get through committee and a vote on the floor, he would “vote for it if he thought it was going to pass”. I took it at the time that this meant that at some level, Larry understands the complexity of our current laws and the cost it’s prohibition imposes on our society despite his personal feelings about its use.  Something I greatly respected at the time.

Now, I’m not so sure.  Lately he’s been supporting teabagger legislation to defend state rights despite the obvious need to deal with the Washington State budget.

“This is to make a stand, to draw a line in the sand,” said Rep. Larry Haler, R-Richland, a co-sponsor of five bills that would assert the state’s right to make its own policy in areas such as energy, firearm sales, police powers and taxes.

And most recently he got his hat handed to him trying to introduce legislation on university executive pay.  While that might seem a noble thing, and one spurred by my friend Laural Piippo, the response he got was definitely a learning experience and frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t see it coming. (and a big hat tip to Michelle Dupler for some good reporting)

Bill Lyne, president of the United Faculty of Washington State, said while he supported the notion of holding the line on executive salaries, he worried the bill would divert discussion from the real issues of higher education funding the Legislature will tackle during the session.

The state faces a $2.6 billion revenue shortfall for the remainder of the 2009-11 biennium. Cuts have been proposed to higher education funding as well as student financial aid, although Gov. Chris Gregoire has said she’d like to see the Legislature find a way to save financial aid programs.

“I’m worried the symbolic might overshadow the reality,” Lyne said to the committee. “If we fired all six (public) university presidents, we would save $3 million. … I don’t think this should dominate the conversation about higher education or higher education funding this session.”

If you were following any of this mess, Laurel Piippo is dead on.  And perhaps the awareness might help.  But I think Larry was schooled.

“A better way to solve the problem is to better fund universities,” Lyne said.

A recent survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education ranked University of Washington President Mark Emmert’s $905,000 annual salary second in the nation for public universities. The Ohio State University President Gordon Gee was first at $1.5 million.

Haler said the pay earned by university executives is disproportionate to money spent on higher education in the state, citing reports that Washington ranks 48th in the nation for higher education funding.

He agreed with Lyne that better funding is needed.

“I think we need to get a little more real in funding, in getting state funding reallocated to state universities,” Haler said after the hearing.

Explain that to the teabaggers frothing over all that states right stuff Larry.  These are the same folks who don’t seem to want to pay for anything. And when they perceive anything as unjust in their world - like executive pay no matter how inconsequential to the larger more broad issues at play - They will bark like rabid dogs.  My advice:  Don’t align yourself with them.  You will have plenty of friends here if you just be your own person.

On Term Limits…

The Slog’s Chicago Fan’s take is dead on.

When politicians are primarily motivated by getting re-elected, they have every motive to cave in to media bullshit, loud minority opinions, and generally not get things done. If politicians knew  going in that they had 8 or 12 years at most in their jobs, and they were presented with tough choices (public option or not? Fund a crazy pre-emptive war or not?) the calculus of re-election would not matter as much. Final term office-holders could do what they honestly thought was right since they weren’t going to be running for re-election in any case. And in their not-yet-final terms, they also would not be looking ahead to maybe being Speaker in ten or twelve years, or maybe Majority Leader someday.

I would argue that if term limits were enacted, not only would a rational Health Care Reform bill be passed by now, it would also be a better bill for both industry and individuals. Without the pressures of elections and pitting those against what the people want and the corporate interests, lawmakers would have crafted a bill out of sincerity instead.  We will never know at this stage unless something is done to limit how long members of congress can serve.  And I’m talking to you Doc Hastings (and quite deleting my comments off your Facebook page you twit - it makes you look like an ass and I’m about read to start the FB page “Stop deleting OUR comments off your FB page Doc Hastings… good god what a worm).

Howard Dean almost nailed it but…

It’s not quite that simple.  Voters in Mass, the ones that showed up, just voted for a nude model.  I don’t know what exactly that means but it doesn’t mean the ones who turned out are all that bright.  Yes, they do want change and a variety of populist issues were at play including but not limited to HCR.  A gaff about who is a Red Sox fan and a low turnout in the democratic base and… welcome Senator Brown!  Yes, Howard, you are correct, and they did want change.  Just not another lame ass democrat like the ones currently pandering around DC.  It would be enough to make me stay home.

I think Gibbs was a little more on target but not much.  Nobody has had a very good explanation if you ask me.  The MA vote doesn’ t seem to mean voters were unhappy with HCR in particular.  It’s the watered down version full of concessions for the HC industry, the debacle the democrats helped the republicans make out of it, and - and I’m conceding this point to Ken Robertson of the Tri-City Herald - factions of the democratic party hurting their own cause.

Here is Gibbs…

If Dems could pull this rabbit out of their hats, the could probably fix it down the road.  But right now, I’m not so sure they have the will.  I’m not sure I have the will to watch.

Supreme Court Decision on corporate free speech…  are we really fucked now Internet?

I would argue that yesterdays Supreme Court Decision on corporate free speech could be a game changer as we brace for more decisions on Net Neutrality and FCC authority over service providers.  The danger here to me is the amount of money those interests could spend molding public opinion towards their own interest.  Fortunatly, for now, not every big player on the internet is on the same page as this tidbit from Juan Cole points out in a larger context this morning.

[...] In other words, given the extreme maldistribution of wealth in the US, the corporate sector already had things stacked in its favor through wealthy persons employed by corporations. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN pointed out that in a congressional race, a million dollars is a lot of money, but would be chump change for a corporation. But it would be chump change for a lot of corporate executives, too.

Then, corporations don’t all agree with each other. We still have Net Neutrality in part because Google lobbied for it even as some of the telecoms lobbied against it.[...]

I’d like to believe that there are corporations out there with a moral compass in regards to Net Neutrality but given that public trust of the corporate world is at an all time low following this latest financial crisis, and the fact that Congress isn’t moving nearly fast enough on legislation to re-regulate corporate practices, time is not on our side.  And as it is now with this latest supreme court decision (just for the sake of argument), if Net Neutrality were up to a public vote, the cards would be stacked against proponents of Net Neutrality when it comes to molding the broader public opinion.