Earlier today Eli crossed paths with Attorney General Rob McKenna in the hallway at KUOW, where the Republican candidate for governor had some unkind words to say about me. "I don't think David Goldstein qualifies as a journalist," a miffed McKenna told Eli. "He's a hack. He's a partisan hack. He's just there to parrot points from the other side."
Wow. That's kinda harsh. Sounds like I hurt his feelers. Was it something I said?
To be fair, I am partisan and have never tried to hide it. But I don't parrot anybody. For those who think I'm some kind of Democratic Party tool, you've got it backwards. They're my tool, as they should be, and I spend a helluva lot more time and effort getting Democrats to parrot my messaging than the other way around.
As for the accusations of hackery, well, apart from a little foul language and an ideological divide, there's really not all that much that separates me from the editorial board columnists at the Seattle Times. You know, that and the ability to write a coherent sentence. So if Joni Balter and Bruce Ramsey are hacks, then I'm guilty as charged. But I don't see McKenna kicking either of them out of a press conference anytime soon.
Ironically, if you want an illustration of hackery, you need look no further than McKenna's campaign kickoff speech Wednesday night, in which he deliberately attempted to manipulate data for cheap, partisan political gain, causing his Republican audience to gasp in horror at his tales of pampered state workers bleeding taxpayers dry:
"I looked at one ten year period, 1998 to 2008. And what I discovered is that, in that ten year period, every single year, the state increased the amount it spent per employee by five percent. Every year, for ten years. In that same ten year period, the state increased the amount it spent on state worker benefits by nine percent a year, every single year for ten years. And at the same time, in that same ten year period, they increased the number of state employees by 13 percent."
First of all, 1998 to 2008 is not a "ten year period." It's eleven years. But see what he does there? "Every single year," McKenna claims, the state increased per employee spending by five percent. "Every single year," he repeats, the state increased benefits nine percent. And then he tags on a 13 percent increase in the number of state workers, allowing the audience to infer that that's every single year too. "Gasp!" Clever, clever.
Of course, it's 13 percent over eleven years, which really isn't all that much considering that over the same period, Washington's population grew by almost 15 percent, meaning that the state workforce is largely growing in step with population. Huh. Seems a little misleading, at best.
Almost as misleading as arguing that we need to slash the number of state workers in order to fully fund our state colleges and universities, when about 44 percent of state workers are employed in our state colleges and universities! I mean, only a hack would attempt to make an argument like that without further explication. As for McKenna's other assertions, I've yet to find the supporting data, but I suspect a similar level of hackery.
Yes, I'm partisan, just like McKenna, but unlike him, I'm somewhat obsessive about backing up my factual assertions with, you know, facts, and unlike some other political reporters, I'm willing and able to do the math. Which I'm guessing is the real reason why McKenna won't let me into a press conference: he's afraid I'll ask him a question he can't answer, or even worse, call him on his bullshit partisan hackery when he tries.
5
7
9
10
18
21
22
25
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
As higher-paid employees leave state service, lower-paid employees take their places.As Fnarf states @5, the year-over-year cost of maintaining benefits is what is driving personnel costs for everybody. Making employees shoulder more of the cost, while popular, is yet another kick the can down the road approach to budgeting.
The raises are staggered through the year, on employee anniversary dates, and they don’t all happen July 1.
The number of employees has been reduced by layoffs and attrition.
The step increases don’t go to all workers – just classified employees.
Add those elements to the equation and the office says the step increases cost only $16 million. And since the debate was really about the impact on the state general fund – that portion is only $6.5 million.
That’s a little less than $83 million. And canceling the raise wouldn’t have done much to ease the $2.8 billion shortfall the state faced this year.
37
38
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
49
51
WA state employees pay an average of 12% of their health insurance premium, family and individual.That's WAY below what most public and private employees pay nationwide.Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say we'll double employee contribution to 24%. Wonderful. You've helped this cycle. What about the next budget with the year-over-year increases being what they are? Double it again? When is your line when you say, ok, public employees pay enough, it's time for the taxpayer to help? There is my biggest complaint...this isn't about getting public employees to "pay a little more". More than a few on the right think public employees should take anywhere from 10-30% cuts. Further, so many on the right ridicule and belittle public employees (with the *sometimes* exception of public safety, even though they have the most generous contracts of all) but then expect top-notch service from their government. If you want top-notch service, you're going to have to pay for it, just like in private business.
52
53
54
55
56
Well, your expectations are at least reasonable...
The left has crippled business in this country..
It has made government into a cradle to grave nanny, rather than an impartial referee. It has converted the dialogue from 'what do I owe my fellow citizens in civic duty' to 'what do my fellow citizens owe me in cash payments.'
To be sure, this isn't done out of malice.
Some on the left genuinely and inexplicably believe their own nonsense. Some are self interested and will grab at any justification for stealing from others for their own sustenance.
Some, like- well, you and Rujax and Goldy and Savage- are malicious vulgar children.
They don't do well in this society, so rather than adapt they throw childish temper tantrums and try to bring that society down out of sheer pettiness. Have fun trying, but I still believe there are enough adults in our country that you won't succeed.
59
Comments (60) RSS