"The Chamber of Commerce is already mad about it, which is usually a good sign."

"Changing the tax code isn’t a fast process, though ..."

In this specific circumstance, its a terrible sign the Chamber ain't happy.

Amazon is already dropping Seattle leases as they come due. So has Meta and other tech firms.

Where are they going? Bellevue, because they aren't raising the B & O Tax rate on the largest businesses.

So Seattle has to decide if they want 1.6% of these business's revenue, or 2.5% of no revenue. Which raises the most revenue, 1.6% of something or 2.5% of zero?

The answer is state level tax reform. Trade Sales Tax and Property Taxes for a new Income tax and lock in the trade in the Amendment to the State Constitution that would be required.

That will mean the large firms can't vote with their feet and take their taxable activity to Bellevue, Tacoma, Renton, or someplace else.

Progressives couldn't even win King County with the last state income tax proposal. To win statewide, they are going to have to make it Constitutionally required that an increase in the State's Income Tax automatically reduces a regressive tax, or voters won't go for it.

The Principals, Vice-Principals, and other public employees in question at Nathan Hale High School should be personally responsible for paying any judgment from the alleged failure to protect the student from discrimination.

That should include garnishment of their pensions.

The 14th Amendment requires that if you make that a requirement for one kind of public employee, it must be done for all types of public employees.

Zero comments on here yet? Not a single one? That's strange. Slow morning!

So much for Barth's assertion that the "red shift" in formerly reliably Democrat demographic groups was due to low voter turnout.

"But new data from Pew Research has some bad news: if more people had showed up, Trump would have done even better."

Saddam Hussein hid his weapons of mass destruction just in time as the Iranians hid their nuclear capabilities just in time.

Increasing the B&O tax is a dumb move. We shouldn't even have a gross income tax. It is patently unfair to tax businesses on their GROSS sales without regard to profitability.

Cutting off Medicaid funding for PP is an awesome accomplishment for those states that do it. As all money is fungible, any money going to an organization providing abortions, does indeed fund abortions. PP also provides "gender affirming care" for minors. Most taxpayers have no desire to fund this crap.

More good news from SCOTUS expected tomorrow. Can't wait.

It's shameful SPS can't protect their Jewish students from anti-semitism. But SPS supports all of the local protests and most of the "protestors" lately have been anti-semites, so it all makes sense I guess.

Millions of young, non-white voters realized Trump was a far better choice to protect their freedom and prosperity. It's really no surprise, the Democrats have become the party of billionaires. The Republicans now represent the working class. It's a once in several generation re-alignment, led by Trump and MAGA patriots. If you are pissed about MAGA now, wait 5-10 years until we are the predominant cultural force and "progressives" are completely on the fringe.

A few months ago, our priest here announced from the pulpit that there were petitions in the vestibule after mass for people to sign. The petitions were to support anti abortion legislation.

I briefly inquired (ACLU?, Americans United?, I don't remember) and was told that it wasn't enough of a problem. But I think one of the ways the left can fight back against the right, esp the Catholic Church, is to begin hammering the church's tax exempt status. Politics is all about compromise and You get what You want, I get what I want. So let's see how much the Religious Right cares about other people's bodies & bedrooms when their own tax status is on the line.

@6, " If you are pissed about MAGA now, wait 5-10 years until we are the predominant cultural force and "progressives" are completely on the fringe."
Yes....I can't wait until there's a toll booth on every bridge & expressway entrance, until you have to drive 75 miles to the nearest hospital where you can't get into the parking lot without insurance & and until the entire budget for the NIH is $5.00. I can't wait until there is only 1 Reproductive Health Clinic in the US and their sole function is to sell Viagra. I can't wait until there's one voting booth for the entire nation located in Bumfuck Alabama. All that WINNING!!!!! I can't stand ALL THE WINNING!!!

@7: If we want to keep the division between church and state, going after the tax exempt status is the wrong way to go about it. Tell your priest to adhere to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".

If the division between church and state fails, authoritarianism wins. Remember, the Catholic church often also protects undocumented immigrants when and where it can.

@7, maybe we move away from tax exemptions altogether. If you can’t see the services that churches provide from the designer doggie rescue 501(c)3s or other pet (ha!) project nonprofits that people drum up. But that will tank affordable housing orgs, food banks, emergency health services. Suck up the political organizing from the pulpit maybe.

What does it tell you when people who normally vote democrat jumped ship and voted for Trump?
Hint: It’s not racism or misogyny.

@9: going after the RCC's tax exempt status is a fucking pipe dream. don't worry about it. the IRS couldn't even stand firm against Scientology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_the_United_States

politicized anti-choice homilies have been a regular feature of the RCC for decades and comfortably exist side by side with whatever "protecting undocumented immigrants" a few parishes engage in.

Fuck an income tax and fuck everybody who wants one.

@SLOG "But new data from Pew Research has some bad news: if more people had showed up, Trump would have done even better."

Andrew Sullivan has an interesting opinion piece over at the NYTimes about how the radicalization of the gay movement after Obergfell has made the victories of the last 50 years more perilous.

He has this sentence, "In the last five years, activists have actually managed to move public opinion away from their causes in many respects." He is referencing LGBTQ+ issues, but the same sentence applies to all areas on the left. We've let the activists push the agenda on justice reform, LGB rights, feminist rights, and environmental and climate issues; the result has been an erosion of public support for all of the things those of us on the left claim to care about.

Maybe it really is time to stop listening to and giving power to the most radical activists, and return to the concept of slow measured progress. Hopefully it's not too late.

@14 Most of the "radical activists" with any real power are on the Right.

@12 - Yes, and a large population of undocumented immigrants are anti-choice Catholics.

Pew can massage the data all they want; the simple fact remains, if the 2020 electorate had voted in 2024, Harris would be president. And -- unlike at the link the Stranger provided, btw -- Pew itself admits upfront that turnout made the difference. (All quotes below from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/behind-trumps-2024-victory-a-more-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-voter-coalition/)

"These shifts were largely the result of differences in which voters turned out in the 2020 and 2024 elections. As in the past, a relatively small share of voters switched which party’s candidate they supported.

"In 2024, Trump benefited from higher turnout among those who voted for him in 2020. He also held an edge over Harris among voters who did not vote four years earlier – a group that was considerably more diverse than those who voted in both elections."

Key phrases here are, "a relatively small share of voters," and following from that, "a group that was considerably more diverse than those who voted in both elections." Yes, because they were so small, every difference between voters counted more towards diversity than in the much, much larger number "than those who voted in both elections."

Turnout wins elections, pure and simple. Seven million fewer citizens voted in 2024 than in 2020.

Let's keep going:

"And while Trump improved his performance among several groups in 2024, many of the demographic patterns in voting preferences that have dominated American politics for the last several decades remained evident last November..."

Note, "several groups," not "many groups." Again and again, we read about how small Trump's advantage was. Put those seven million votes back, and his tiny advantage would have been swamped. Turnout wins elections.

Next, we have this shocker, one which No One Could Have Predicted:

"In each of his campaigns, Trump has held an edge among voters without four-year college degrees. But his 14-point advantage among noncollege voters (56% to 42%) was double his margin in 2016. Harris won voters with college degrees by 57% to 41%, but that was smaller than Biden’s lead among this group in 2020."

Again, because the 2020 voters who did not vote in 2024 had voted heavily for Biden/Harris. Turnout wins elections.

"Trump won voters living in rural areas by 40 points (69%-29%), which was higher than his margins in 2020 or 2016. Harris’ advantage among voters living in urban areas was nearly as large (65% voted for Harris, 33% Trump)."

Rural, less-educated voters went for Trump in a big way. Wow, that's huge news! And that greater turnout helped Trump win this election.

And finally, just in case you haven't been paying attention:

"While most of those who voted in 2020 cast ballots again in 2024, a larger share of Trump’s voters (89%) than Biden’s (85%) turned out.

"And a larger share of those who did not turn out in 2020 – but did in 2024 – supported Trump (54%) than Harris (42%)"

All together, now: turnout wins elections.

@14. Andrew Sullivan and Helen Pluckrose were among the first voices I encountered having something intelligent to say about the recent intellectual percolations on the Left, though for him it was much more personal. Having been such an influential figure in an actual success achieved through liberal, reformist means, only to see it being jeopardized by post modern Jacobins is understandable. When the Jacobins began lecturing about sex partners, gender identity and plumbing, Sullivan replied "until now the last person who told me who to sleep with was a priest."

That elements of New Left radicalism are again in vogue is indisputable. The question is why, especially given its inglorious sunset by 1970. Everyone knows how the battle at the Alamo ended. Why would anyone want to reenact it and volunteer to be within the doomed walls? Perhaps for some, losing in Symbionese Liberation Army drag is more virtuous than winning within the liberal institutions and processes that more than occasionally prove their durability. At least Andrew Sullivan is a living example.

"That elements of New Left radicalism are again in vogue is indisputable."

Right down to the keffiyehs, except those are now no longer made in Palestine.

"The question is why, especially given its inglorious sunset by 1970. Everyone knows how the battle at the Alamo ended. Why would anyone want to reenact it and volunteer to be within the doomed walls?"

Carved into the frieze of the main library building at my Alma Mater: "WHO KNOWS ONLY HIS OWN GENERATION REMAINS ALWAYS A CHILD."

Trump will claim credit for this: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/ge-appliances-moves-washing-machine-production-from-china-to-kentucky-with-490-million-investment/

@20

I'm sure anyone who lives in Seattle can relate to the following passage from Sullivan's piece.

"And, as in other “social justice” spaces, dissent was equated with bigotry. .... This little community used to champion all manner of expression or argument or speech, eccentrics and visionaries. Now it’s fearful, self-censored and extremely uptight. Debate has been all but snuffed out; total uniformity of thought is demanded.

Is it really any wonder that people outside of our little liberal clique look at us and want nothing to do with any of us or the policies we propose?

21 should have been @19

@14 & 18 & 19 it's not at all surprising that the three of you agree the most important thinker on the "left" is a Log Cabin Republican

Anyone who is put off supporting LGBTQ rights because of "the radicalization of the gay movement" was never really an ally to begin with. Thirty years ago supporting gay marriage was considered too "radical" by centrist Dems like yourselves. Sorry if the the actual left dragging you into modernity is uncomfortable.

I can always count on 13-12 to prove my point.

“Now it’s fearful, self-censored and extremely uptight. Debate has been all but snuffed out; total uniformity of thought is demanded.”

Andrew sullivan is literally a self-identified conservative who has never represented the left, and the idea that the gay rights movement was ever not “radical” is completely detached from reality. The only lgbtq issue he ever cared about was marriage because it was the only one that affected him personally. He is a bog standard conservative who happens to be gay.

@25: My goodness, your feathers get ruffled so easily. So intolerant of diverse thought within the community. Do you hear yourself?

@24 he writes: "Almost all of the gay men, trans people and lesbians who have confided in me that they don’t agree with this, or think that J.K. Rowling or Martina Navratilova have some good points, have said so sotto voce lest anyone overhear. That’s the extremely intolerant and illiberal atmosphere that now exists in the gay, lesbian and transgender space."

But fifteen years ago any liberals who, for example, thought being gay was in fact a choice would have had to keep quiet "least anyone overhear." That's what happens when you have backward opinions: you might get judged for it. That doesn't mean the group doing the judging is "extremely intolerant and illiberal." The best you can say about Sullivan is he's almost self-aware:

"As I watched all this radical change, I wondered, was I just another old fart, shaking my fist at the sky, like every older generation known to man? Why not just accept that the next gay and lesbian generation has new ideas, has moved on, and old-timers like me should just move aside?"

But no, he concludes, it's the children who are wrong.

@11: I'm going for Door Number 3: brainwashed voter stupidity from too much misinformation through GOP fueled social media.

@17: Aha! Too many inbred stupid people keep getting conned into voting for the wrong candidate.
And usually uneducated rural parts of this country tend to suffer the worst in bad economic times.
That's nothing to gloat about, teenieweenie.

@23: 'Thirty years ago supporting gay marriage was considered too "radical" by centrist Dems like yourselves.'

In the late '90s, I attended a "town hall" meeting at SCCC with Reps. Frank Chopp and Ed Murray. Asked about marriage equality, Murray explained it was on his agenda, but the letters and e-mails he'd been getting from constituents, and from gay citizens across Washington, was to work on the bread-and-butter issues first: extend employment, housing, and civil-rights protections statewide, then work on marriage. He followed their advice exactly, and yes, there were a very few gays on Capitol Hill who wanted to try for marriage back then, but they didn't represent anything except their own privileged selves.

Had their agenda gone first, LGBTQ+ citizens across Washington state might still be waiting for protections in employment, housing, and civil rights, and marriage equality might still be too radical to talk about.

@27: No, it's not a generational thing a lot of young gay men and women are fed up pissedUsed to be about same sex attraction and now the whole gender th9ing and messing with kids set things back man

@29 "Had their agenda gone first, LGBTQ+ citizens across Washington state might still be waiting for protections in employment, housing, and civil rights, and marriage equality might still be too radical to talk about."

Well that's unknowable, but what we do know is that, despite Sullivan whining that "sex was no longer to be recognized at birth — it was now merely assigned, penciled in" Washington State in RCW 49.60.040(29) has protected from discrimination people whose "gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth" since 2006--notably six years before gay marriage was legalized here. So while he, and others here, opine that supporting trans rights will somehow set the LGBTQ community back (or already has), here in this state we have concrete evidence that it does not.

@31: Well, I don’t know what point you were trying to make @23, but as you seem to have completely abandoned it upon the first hint of challenge, I’m guessing even you recognized it wasn’t a very good one.

My point remains: although your statement I’d quoted was true, it didn’t prevent realization of marriage equality. We just didn’t get marriage equality exactly on the schedule the most radical members of the Seattle LGBTQ+ had demanded.

@32 sorry you're too dumb to understand my point, but I choose not to re-explain it in simpler words for you. I'll instead leave you with this quote:

"Justice too long delayed is justice denied."

@9, I don't know what church you attend, but I doubt you're Roman Catholic. First, What has tax exempt status got to do with Separation of Church & State? It's ONLY got to do with the power that MONEY brings. Second, a Catholic priest doesn't give a shit about what his congregants say. He doesn't answer to them. He answers to the regional bishop who answers to Rome. I recommend to you Minneapolis diocese of a decade ago: Someone my sister worked with was very disappointed that the Bishop of Minneapolis was spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to oppose Gay Marriage propositions in MN while her co worker was moaning about how his local church could have used that money to support their local homeless outreach. I remain Catholic because I've been one all my live & @ 76 the dog can't learn new tricks. But the Catholic church cares about defending doctrine & polishing the gold in Rome, NOT about the souls of it's parishioners. If the Catholic church defends the undocumented, it's only because they rake in their support & money from the working man......NOT, overall, from the wealthy.
@10, I'd bet anything that the reason the Catholic church is (today) heavily involved in social services is because it's profitable.....NOT because it's charitable. Witness the story above of my sister's coworker.
@12, Hah! I thought I was alone in this.
@13, Fine. You stop using your streets, sidewalks, water system, electrical system (both those at the very least get a free easement for their lines from the public), police, fire, libraries, hospitals, airports, air traffic control, court system, inspection depts (food, health, water, money), banking, medical research, military, postal service, agriculture, education, waterways, and on and on and on and on........and I'll support you stop paying taxes!!
@14, Maybe it's time to repeal the Citizen's United decision. All that of which you speak is caused by the money unleashed by PACs.
@16, My, such strange bedfellows in this thread. But in line with @11, much as I can't stand Trump, it's this kind of unmitigated subservience of the Dems to all things race, sexual, and immigrant that makes me think (ack, choke, wheeze, hack) of voting for Trump. All those Dem groups can be just as bigoted, doctrinaire & close minded as any on the far right.
@17, "....if the 2020 electorate had voted in 2024, Harris would be president." If Sawant & Jayapal had just kept their mouths shut about the Clintons DURING THE CAMPAIGN!!

@33: So, you have no point? Marriage equality simply was not going to happen in the ‘90s. Back then, Congress passed a law forbidding it. A very moderate civil rights Initiative in Washington state lost decisively in 1997. Any push for marriage any faster would simply have helped the bigots prevent all progress.

It’s great to recognize what is just, but if you consistently listen to the most radical demands for it immediately, you will consistently fail to achieve justice. That’s the point you simply refuse to learn here.