The Seattle Times Thinks the State Income Tax Initiative Will Murder Children, Eat Kittens and Sand Your Grandmother's Face Off

Does anyone who isn't an angry, elderly Republican take the Seattle Times editorial board seriously? They put another editorial up yesterday afternoon, saying Initiative 1098, the income-tax-on-the-rich proposal sponsored by Bill Gates Sr., will be the end of the fucking world.

I honestly think the Times ed board all sit around in a room and start screaming whenever anyone says the word "tax." Every time a new tax proposal comes up, for any reason, they immediately pump out some hysterical bullshit about why it's a terrible idea that will obliterate business, destroy jobs and generally do just about everything they can think of that is bad (not backing any of this up with actual facts or anything, of course).

What really gets to me about this editorial is how they manage to entirely ignore that a new income tax will come conveniently packaged with a 20 percent reduction in state property taxes — one of those "middle class tax cuts" the Times loves to champion when rich people's extra cash isn't at stake.

I've written letters to the editor when they've published garbage like this in the past. They're a nice idea in theory, but they don't really accomplish anything. The process usually goes something like this:

1. I triumphantly e-mail a fiery but well-written letter.
2. They edit it — removing and/or watering down just about every point I make
3. They publish the letter with their edits included and my name at the end, thus making me look like an idiot who doesn't have well-thought-out opinions.

This is one of the things I miss about the P-I (another being...uh...my job). I didn't always agree with their editorial board, but at least they weren't so...predictable.

If anyone's interested, I included an example of the Times' dumbing-down of one of my letters below the jump:

Here's me:

Editor:

Mayor McGinn’s not listening? When Tim Burgess’s aggressive panhandling bill came up for a vote last week, public comment at the city council meeting was two to one against it, according to every account I have heard. Additionally, a laundry list of human rights and civil liberties organizations had come out against the bill, which likely is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Are you unaware, or did you choose to leave out the fact that aggressive panhandling is already a criminal offense in Seattle? This bill would only add a civil penalty on top of that—which means cops have to meet a far lower burden of proof and suspects don’t have the right to an attorney. Where does that leave the “aggressive” panhandlers then? I think it’s safe to assume most don’t have an extra $50 lying around to cover the fine. If anything, this encourages even more aggressive panhandling.

If a fine goes unpaid, these people could wind up getting arrested—though I have a feeling that would be just as agreeable an outcome in the minds of the Times editorial board.

Let’s try to solve homelessness instead of criminalizing it.

Garrett McCulloch

Seattle

 And here's what the Times decided I really meant:

End, not criminalize homelessness

Mayor Mike McGinn is not listening? When Tim Burgess’ aggressive-panhandling bill came up for a vote last week, public comment at the City Council meeting was 2-to-1 against it, according to every account I have heard.

Additionally, a laundry list of human-rights and civil-liberties organizations had come out against the bill, which likely is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Aggressive panhandling is already a criminal offense in Seattle. This bill would only add a civil penalty on top of that, which means cops have to meet a far lower burden of proof and suspects do not have the right to an attorney.

Where does that leave that aggressive panhandler? I think it is safe to assume most do not have an extra $50 lying around to cover the fine. If anything, this encourages even more aggressive panhandling.

Let’s try to solve homelessness instead of criminalizing it.

— Garrett McCulloch, Seattle