Mike Heavey doorbelling: On the issues

[Nils2]

Déjà vu!

Mike Heavey came by doorbelling the other day, and he was generous to a fault with his time as we (WSB user Julie and I) grilled him about various issues. The least I can do for him in return is to summarize some of his answers to our questions. Keep in mind, of course, that I am very likely to have summarized some of his positions badly, and he would probably rephrase almost everything I have written. :-)

If this sounds familiar, do not be alarmed. Apparently WSB has long tentacles, because Heavey had read my post about Fitzgibbon and came prepared for similar treatment. Yes, dear reader, I am as surprised as you. Without further ado:

Education

* On where to get the money: I-1098, cuts in public safety (see below), and closing “tax loopholes” for big companies like “Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon”.

* On whether he supports Race To The Top policies: Some of them. No on performance/merit pay. Yes on incentive pay (for teaching in poor schools, e.g.). Strong yes on new data management systems.

* On what “accountability measures” he would support in education: Implement metrics for school administrators, and dismiss those who do poorly.

Public Safety / Corrections

* On how to cut the public safety budget: Efficiencies, reduced incarceration for nonviolent offences, reform marijuana laws.

* On marijuana: Legalize and tax. We could use the money.

* On liquor privatization: “We have fiduciary responsibility to protect kids”. However, his opinion is not strong.

* The quote of the night: “I’d rather have kids outside high on marijuana than drunk on beer, and I’d rather they be drunk on beer than drunk on liquor.”

Taxes and Spending

* On I-1098: a great leap forward.

* On how much money those tax loopholes for big companies amount to: Perhaps $100-200M? “I’m not a budget person.”

* On the amount of money a marijuana tax would raise: “Rumor” has it that a tax could raise $2-3B, but “I’m not a budget person.”

* On how cutting corrections, at 5% of the operating budget, can meaningfully help public schools, at 44%: The state has to fill in public safety budget shortfalls at the county level, though grants. The grants are not easily seen as a line item of the budget. However, “I’m not a budget person” so “I’ll get back to you with more specifics.”

* On spending: Interested in compromising with conservatives to enact performance-based government and/or zero-based budgeting.

Political and Election Reform

* On election reform: “We don’t have the best system.” Few specifics, but somewhat interested in proportional voting.

* On IRV and similar systems: Not well versed.

* On initiatives: Raise the filing fee (from $5) and increase transparency. Eyman is gaming the system.

* On the initiative fee: “I had to pay $420 to run in one county, so, as a baseline, $420 x 39 counties” (= $16,000.)

Environment and Transit

* “I read what you wrote about Joe, and I’m going to say the same thing” (Indeed, he proceded to say the same thing.)

One More Thing That I Promised Mike I Would Publish :-)

* On yard signs: You’ll notice that my yard signs are all on private property, so they will be disposed of properly. I’m very insistent about this matter.

Thanks for talking with us, Mike!

Share This

[littlebrowndog]

Several “I’m not a budget person” responses? Is there ANYTHING more crucial than a good grasp of the budget? It impacts virtually all other priorities.

I’m hoping he comes to my door in the next few days. While I am not fond of people knocking on my door, Joe Fitzgibbon stopped by last night and it was great to talk with him in person and not feel at all rushed. When I told him I am more likely to support Republicans (in a Democrat District!) he wasn’t offended. He took the time to answer my questions and I had the impression that he acknowledges his youth and would be more open to hear from constituents.

I am liking this opportunity to spend time with the candidates. Mike, c’mon by! I’m in the 49th and Dawson neighborhood.

Share This

[DP]

Nils:

I was going to ask you who you like better between Fitzgibbon and Heavey, but I think I already know. Politicians must learn to be very careful what they say to a WS Blogster.

I’d rather have kids outside high on marijuana than drunk on beer, and I’d rather they be drunk on beer than drunk on liquor.

Personally, I’d prefer to be drunk on a fine cabernet than on Ripple, but when it comes to the kids, ah, that’s a tough one . . .

Whatever they can afford on their allowance, I guess.

—David

Share This

[charlabob]

This just got simple for the charlabob. Seattle Times endorsed Heavey because Fitzgibbon is too far to the left. :-)

Share This

[maplesyrup]

So he’s for merit pay for administrators but not for teachers. Did I get that right?

Share This

[anonyme]

Nils2, thank you so much for these informative posts. I’d pretty much already decided to vote for Joe, but this wraps it up for me.

BTW, Mike is not telling the truth about his signs. There are several in the planted divider on 16th Ave SW by SSCC – clearly in the PUBLIC right of way.

Share This

[Nils2]

littlebrowndog: Yes, he said “I’m not a budget person” several times. You could either interpret this as a lack of knowledge about a (“the”?) critical issue, or as blunt honesty among a field of candidates who similarly lack hard numbers. It reminds me of McCain’s “The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.” Despite being an honest description of his weak spots, it not the type of thing candidates usually say. Before you write Heavey off for those comments, ask yourself if other candidates actually have a superior grasp of the budget.

David: I’m guessing that you’re guessing that I prefer Fitzgibbon. So far I’ve been impressed by both Heavey and Fitzgibbon. I think perhaps this interview isn’t as flattering as my interview with Fitzgibbon, but I tried to write what I heard. Heavey’s proposed money-saving measures seem more realistic than Joe’s, he seems more open to the kind of educational reform I’m interested in, and I agree with his comments on marijuana. Those are no small matters.

maplesyrup: Despite my best efforts to elicit yes-or-no answers on education reform, Heavey was very reluctant to get pinned down. However, my impression is that, indeed, he supports merit pay for administrators but not for teachers.

anonyme: Yes, I too have noticed a few Heavey signs on public property (eastern Roxbury). I guess those signs do not have Heavey’s blessing. :-( I still give him credit for trying.

Share This

[littlebrowndog]

Nils2, yes, I think you are right: few, if any, of the candidates have a good grasp of the numbers and budgets. I hate having to choose among a variety of incompetent people. I’d say they will learn on the job if they have the aptitude except I’ve only seen a few examples of that, ergo the spending spree of the past several years and the gridlock in doing anything about resolving it. But I feel that if a candidate is going to talk about needing to raise revenue then they ought to be knowledgeable enough to cite details rather than simply following the party line. I’m not sure that either Mike or Joe can do that.

Share This

[maplesyrup]

Thanks Nils2.

Perhaps this subject merits another thread, but I am wondering why exactly so many people seem to be opposed to merit pay for teachers.

Yes, the standards that need to be met and the yardsticks by which they’re measured are subject to debate, but in the vast majority of fields out there, employees are given expectations and rewarded, judged and held accountable based on those expectations. What’s wrong with that?

Share This

[Nils2]

maplesyrup:

Merit pay has a ton of problems. Debatepedia does an adequate job of covering many of them:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Merit_pay_for_teachers

I believe that many of these shortfalls could be alleviated (primary by designing the correct “yardstick”), and that the benefits of merit pay would outweigh the problems that are intrinsic to it.

Share This

[Author]

Posts