It recently came to my attention that many collection agencies have not registered as collection agencies to do business in Washington or in other states in which they operate. In order to avoid having to do this some say that they have purchased the debt so they are not collecting it for someone else. This is a fairly transparent means of trying to avoid collection agency law in the states as well as application of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In many states, including Washington, this tactic does not work. The law covers debts purchased by businesses in the debt collection business. Failure to register exposes these businesses to significant damages and is an enormous advantage to any consumer.
Many people call GM’s vehicles dinosaurs, which could be weirdly prescient in that analysts say that GM will become extinct in early 2009 unless it receives billions from the government. Just last year of course the authomobile industry required $25 billion of loan guaranties from the government. Now GM needs about that amount in cash.
Like Thomas Friedman, I am sick and tired of the automobile industry thinking that it can susrvive by paying money to lobbyists, blocking environmental laws, and disregarding the needs and concerns of consumers. American auto manufacturers used to plan the obsolescence of the cars they manufactured in the interest of causing people to need new ones. Their utter disregard of consumers is tantamount to planning their own obsolescence.
There is no way taxpayer should support the disreputable and irrational behavior of the American auto industry, at least not without some serious concessions. The government ought to get whatever equity there is held by the stockholders and the officers and directors should be held accountable. That means fire them without a parachute of any sort. The salaries of their successors, considering what these companies have done to their industry and to the country, should be dramatically reduced.
All that campaign talk about Obama being a terrorist and somehow un-American translates into frightful activity on the ground. People actually believe that stuff, including dangerous people. To get an idea of the effect of this sort of campaigning consider a bus load of elementary children chanting “assassinate Obama” on the bus. Some of the kids did not even know what “assassinate ” meant.
This was reported by a Rexberg Idaho television station. Rexberg is a small town dominated by a Mormon university. Mormons of course campaigned fiercely against gay marriage in California, spending tens of millions of dollars. I hope this very usual occurrence does not indicate that there is a radical — even violent — branch of the faith.
Last week the Washington State Supreme Court published State v. Griffith a criminal case of interest to people who have had property taken from them. The criminal courts offer an alternative to an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit against the person who took the property. You have to bear in mind that conviction of a crime requires a very high standard of proof, but if you have such proof of guilt, then consider going to the prosecutor instead of suing.
If a person is convicted of taking money or property, or a related offense, the judge can require them to make restitution, that is to pay back the victim. Such an order, as a part of sentencing, is more likely to be paid than a conventional civil judgment.
The facts of this case also remind us to avoid cut rate purchases under circumstances suggesting foul play. Ms. Griffith purchased jewelry in a parking lot at a cheap price, then sold it to a pawn shop. She was later identified by the pawn shop owner and packed off to jail.
I’ve been hearing a lot about where this country is politically and I have to confess that I do not understand much of what is being said. Yesterday I heard a Republican say that “America is right of center.” I sincerely do not understand what that means. I presume that it was intended to mean that Americans support the Republican agenda, but the election offered little to support that position and polls uniformly show that the majority of us support the political issues advanced by so called “liberals” such as opposition to the Iraq war, health care revision, regulation of financial institutions, and establishing a trade balance.
It seems to me that the notions of conservative and liberal are indistinct to say the least with conservatives proposing dramatic changes to the society at least over the last eight years (I’m thinking tax reduction during a war, the “Bush Doctrine” which permits attacking other countries that might be a threat in the future, domestic warrantless surveillance, rendition, Guantanamo and the related human rights issues, abdication of federal oversight of financial institutions, stuff like that) and liberals advocating a return to a balanced budget and trade balance, and rolling back many of the recent changes implemented by the administration.
Another instance of this confusion about what is conservative and what is liberal is the recent Supreme Court case, argued Tuesday, in which the Court heard arguments about the FCC’s right to penalize “fleeting profanity.” The FCC for example fined PBS for airing interviews with old blues men who sometimes used the “s” word.
During oral argument it appeared that the “conservative” judges favored upholding the FCC’s right to control the use of any bad words, while the liberals seemed to disfavor this relatively mild form of censorship. In the courts conservatism is not marked by a philosophical opposition to governmental intrusion into our lives, as conservative judges tend to favor this type of censorship, to favor expansion of the police power and generally to disfavor using civil rights to limit the powers of government. At least in cases involving these competing interests the conservatives are more likely to be on the side of the government. On the other hand when government interferes with business, they are more likely to be on the side of business and the limitation of government.
This reminds me that when the constitution was adopted there was no bill of rights, to Thomas Jefferson’s great disappointment. The conservatives, who generally had opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights, coalesced into the Federalist Party which favored a strong federal government. Federalists were also much more pacifist than Jefferson’s following. I guess the conservatives on the bench take inspiration from John Adams and the Federalists at least in part. The conservatives of that era were for radical changes in the government to centralize and strengthen the power of the federal government.
The just finished presidential election illustrates the blur between conservative and liberal, as these terms are commonly used. McCain could not effectively distinguish his policies from those of Bush. McCain could not identify any bright lines that distinguished his policies from Obama and appealed to the voters. Eventually he seemed to stake his campaign on “character” issues, which to some degree is a euphemism for personal attacks. He did this is substantial part because he could not find the “right of center” where Republicans say most of us reside.
While we’re still experiencing the buzz of the election, let’s chanel that into some attention to local politics. There is a local issue coming to attention of the Council this week that influences everyone living here.
At issue are rather classic competing concerns about the City. On one side are the people who live here who would like to enhance its livability and on the other side are people interested beautifying the Westlake area where it intersects the Mercer Corridor. The issue is whether $30 million is best spent construction a 6 block boulevard or whether it can be put to better use.
The City Council is trying to rush the boulevard approval through without considering a variety of relevant issues including alternative uses of the money.
The City Council’s Budget Committee this week l will consider whether to authorize spending $30 million for the Mercer Corridor Project in 2009 without first receiving the financial and environmental information it requested in Ordinance 122686 (passed in May 2008) as a necessary condition for the Mayor to proceed with the Mercer Project.
Nick Licata is leading the “livability” concerns and is joined by the following groups:
Magnolia Community Club
Rainier Beach Community Club Executive Board
Queen Anne Community Council
Southeast Seattle Crime Prevention Council
Othello Neighborhood Association
Columbia City Community Council
North Seattle Industrial Association
Aurora Avenue Merchants Association
Fremont Chamber of Commerce
Ballard District Council
Seattle Community Council Federation
Northeast District Council
Metropolitan Democratic Club
Seattle Marine Business Coalition
36th District Democrats
46th District Democrats
43rd District Democrats
Queen Anne Neighbors for Responsible Growth
University District Community Council
Feet First (supports dedicating surplus commercial
parking tax revenues to fully funding healthy transportation choices equitably across Seattle rather than going to the Mercer Project)
The money is on the “boulevard” side, as you might guess, with Paul Allen’s people seeing this as a nice enhancement for their South Lake Union project, businesses in the Mercer area favor it as an enhancement that is likely to help business. Many people in the Queen Anne area also favor the project as it enhances their neighborhood, while others there are eager to see the money used for other more broadly beneficial. (There is a discussion of the alternative uses here on September 30). Generally speaking the moneyed interests favor investing the money to make Seattle a better place to drive to. It is important to understand though that this measure is not to relieve traffic but to add aesthetic value to the drive.
To find out more you can contact any of the groups listed above or read the previous entries here or contact the City. Please register your thoughts with the Council members who operate without the benefit of a great deal of public input.
Citizens are directed to the following website to complete a form to send an email to the Mayor’s Office.