Ann Soule Wants Someone to Blame for High Gas Prices. She Forgot to Mention Washington State.

Description

A recent letter to the editor by League of Women Voters activist Ann Soule blames oil companies, the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and nearly everyone else for high gasoline prices. What her letter never mentions is Washington State's own role in creating some of the highest fuel costs in America. The omissions raise an uncomfortable question: when activists support policies that directly increase fuel costs, can they fairly complain about the consequences those same policies create? Many Clallam County residents recognize the name Ann Soule. She serves on the County’s Marine Resources Committee, which recommended to the commissioners [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/county-advises-retreat-or-removal?utm_source=publication-search] that flooding in the Three Crabs area should be dealt with by “retreat or removal” of the homes and road. Through the League of Women Voters, she has pushed for the creation of a county Water Steward position. She has participated in Peninsula Behavioral Health initiatives, including turning the first shovelful of dirt at the NGO’s North View low-barrier, luxury, permanent housing complex [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/dishpan-hands-a-barrier-to-success?utm_source=publication-search] — a publicly funded project that offers harbor views, rooftop terraces, a dog-washing station, and other amenities, with an average price of $350,000 per unit. Recently, Soule authored a Peninsula Daily News letter titled “Oil Repercussions,” arguing that oil companies are reaping excessive profits while consumers struggle under high gasoline prices. In her view, political corruption, insider trading, corporate greed, and Republican leadership deserve much of the blame. What was missing from her analysis, however, was perhaps the single largest state-level factor affecting fuel prices in Washington: Washington State government itself. The Missing Piece of the Story Washington routinely ranks among the most expensive states in America for gasoline. At the time of this writing, only California has higher average fuel prices. Neighboring Idaho is more than a dollar per gallon cheaper. If corporate greed alone explained the difference, one would expect similar prices throughout the region. Instead, Washington has spent years layering taxes, regulations, and climate policies onto the cost of fuel. The most significant of those policies is the Climate Commitment Act. The CCA established a cap-and-invest carbon auction system that requires fuel suppliers to purchase emissions allowances before bringing fuel to market. Those costs are then passed through the supply chain and ultimately to consumers. “It’s not as though their costs have gone up; they’re playing the market because they can.” — Ann Soule Whether someone supports or opposes the Climate Commitment Act, the basic economics are not controversial. The program increases the cost of fuel distribution in Washington. A Return on Investment What costs working families more money at the pump can simultaneously become additional revenue elsewhere. State Senator Marko Liias, who represents the 21st Legislative District in Snohomish County—not the Olympic Peninsula—was one of the leading advocates for the transportation package that increased Washington’s gas tax by six cents per gallon last year. Campaign finance records show that the Jamestown Tribe made the maximum allowable contribution to Liias’ campaign in 2023. At first glance, it raises an obvious question: why would a tribe on the Olympic Peninsula financially support a legislator from the Seattle-area suburbs? One possible answer is that policy matters more than geography. For most Washington residents, the six-cent gas tax increase means higher costs every time they fill their tank. But the impact extends far beyond gasoline. Because nearly everything on the Olympic Peninsula arrives by truck, fuel taxes become a hidden cost embedded in groceries, baby formula, building supplies, farm products, restaurant deliveries, and countless other necessities. Families pay the tax directly at the pump and indirectly through higher prices on everyday goods. For some tribal fuel retailers, however, the equation looks different. Under existing fuel-tax compacts, tribal gas stations can retain 75 percent of the state gas tax [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/fueling-funding-shortfalls?utm_source=publication-search] collected on fuel sales. That means a six-cent gas tax increase translates into roughly 4.5 cents per gallon in additional retained revenue for qualifying tribal stations. If a high-volume station such as Jamestown’s Longhouse Market sells 400,000 gallons of fuel per month—a figure that is not unreasonable for a major highway fuel stop—that increase could generate approximately $18,000 in additional monthly revenue, or more than $216,000 per year. Viewed through that lens, a $2,400 campaign contribution begins to look less like political generosity and more like a remarkably good investment. The Tax Activists Support A repeal effort targeting the Climate Commitment Act reached Washington voters. Among those campaigning to preserve the program [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/joined-at-the-hip?utm_source=publication-search] was Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias. That support was hardly surprising. The Climate Commitment Act generates billions of dollars that flow to government agencies, environmental programs, nonprofits, and tribal governments, including projects involving the Jamestown Corporation, Ozias’ top campaign contributor. The Water App Nobody Talks About One example of a CCA beneficiary is the League of Women Voters’ Future of Water Committee [https://lwvcla.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=851536&module_id=450073], which helped develop a digital app allowing users to monitor Dungeness River flow conditions. The project was presented as a community education tool and, on its face, appears civic-minded and useful. What received far less attention was where the funding originated. According to publicly reported information, software development was financed through a grant administered by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe using money that ultimately came from Washington’s Climate Commitment Act funding stream. That means a project promoted by Soule and her colleagues was funded, at least indirectly, through revenues generated by the same climate policies contributing to Washington’s unusually high fuel prices. Just Buy an EV? Perhaps the most striking portion of Soule’s letter comes near the end, where she offers a solution to rising fuel prices: buy an electric vehicle or hybrid. That recommendation may sound reasonable from the perspective of environmental activists, but for many Clallam County families, it reflects a disconnect from economic reality. Median household income in the county hovers around $60,000 per year. Families are already struggling with housing costs, insurance increases, utility bills, inflation, and grocery prices. Telling those families that the answer to expensive gasoline is purchasing a $40,000 vehicle is a bit like telling someone worried about food prices to buy a second refrigerator and start shopping in bulk. Even used electric vehicles can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Many households simply do not have that kind of money available. Selective Outrage None of this means global events do not affect fuel prices. They do. Wars matter. Supply disruptions matter. International instability matters. But acknowledging those realities does not require ignoring state policies that also increase costs. What makes Soule’s letter noteworthy is not that she criticizes oil companies. Many people do. What stands out is the selective nature of the criticism. When oil companies make money, she sees profiteering. When government-backed climate programs increase costs but fund projects supported by the “nonpartisan” League of Women Voters, those costs disappear from the conversation. When working families struggle with higher energy expenses, the solution becomes buying a different car. When policies supported by environmental activists create financial burdens for residents, responsibility is assigned elsewhere. If gasoline prices are too high, every contributing factor should be on the table, including Washington’s carbon auctions, fuel taxes, regulatory costs, and the sovereign, governmental, and political interests that benefit from them. Ann Soule’s letter points toward oil companies, politicians in Washington D.C., and events happening thousands of miles away. It says very little about the policies, taxes, and beneficiaries much closer to home. If we’re going to follow the money, the trail shouldn’t end when it becomes politically inconvenient. "People are more likely to notice what is wrong with others than what is wrong with themselves." — Leo Tolstoy Today’s Tidbit: Emily Randall If you’d like to see how Congresswoman Emily Randall’s town hall in Chimacum went last week, the entire event was recorded and posted on YouTube. 5:30 — How can young people help?9:25 — Transfer of National Wildlife Refuges to Jamestown Tribe #1.16:50 — Transfer of National Wildlife Refuges #2.19:20 — Can you help with kidnappings by ICE?26:05 — How do we restore the Voting Rights Act?31:00 — Lethal removal of seals and sea lions.34:45 — Also, the lethal removal of marine mammals. 38:15 — Infectious diseases.43:20 — Artificial Intelligence.47:50 — Nationalizing Artificial Intelligence.49:40 — Military Industrial Complex. Here is the Port Angeles Food Bank van mentioned in the podcast: The real estate video also mentioned in the podcast: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Everything Is About Race—Until It Isn't

Race has become a recurring theme in local politics—from school board disputes and county appointments to public health resolutions and campaign rhetoric. But as accusations of racism multiply, many residents are beginning to ask whether everyone is being held to the same standard. Last week, the Port Angeles School Board voted to censure fellow board member Nancy Hamilton. Every board member except Hamilton voted in favor of the resolution, which accused her of making antagonistic and inaccurate statements about the superintendent and improperly disclosing information discussed in executive session. Hamilton viewed the situation differently. “As I am the only Native American on this Board,” she said, “it is hard to see this attack as anything other than an attempt to silence minority voices on the Board.” The issue quickly expanded beyond the specific allegations contained in the censure resolution. Supporters framed the action as part of a broader discussion about race and representation. Among them was Port Angeles Deputy Mayor Navarra Carr, who also serves as Mike French’s campaign manager. Carr circulated an email urging residents to oppose the censure and stating that it was difficult not to see “racist undertones” in the board’s actions. Whether one agrees with Hamilton or the rest of the board is almost beside the point. What matters is how quickly questions of race became central to the discussion. That has become a familiar pattern on the Olympic Peninsula. Racism as a Public Health Emergency The modern era of local government’s focus on race arguably began in 2020. That October, the Jefferson County Board of Health adopted Resolution 65-20 [https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/10539/Racism-Resolution-40-as-presented-at-091720-Bd-of-Health-Mtg?utm_source=chatgpt.com] declaring racism a public health crisis. The resolution described racism as both an acute and chronic threat to public health and committed the county to examining policies through a racial equity lens. The resolution stated that racism contributes to inequities in housing, education, employment, criminal justice, and health outcomes. It further pledged support for efforts aimed at identifying and eliminating systemic barriers faced by racial minorities. At the time, supporters argued that the declaration was a necessary acknowledgment of historical and contemporary disparities. Critics questioned whether broad social and political issues were being transformed into public health matters. Regardless of where one stood on the resolution, it signaled a significant shift. Race was no longer simply one issue among many. It was becoming a framework through which local government would increasingly evaluate public policy. Calling Out Racism The Jefferson County Board of Health was not alone in making race a central public issue in 2020. Many local elected officials were speaking openly about racism, institutional bias, and the need to confront prejudice wherever it appeared. Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias wrote that following a George Floyd vigil, he wanted to engage fellow elected officials and community members in a dialogue about institutional racism in Clallam County. He acknowledged that he did not see overt racism in county government but argued that institutional problems can be difficult for those inside the system to recognize. Commissioner Mike French was equally outspoken. In one June 2020 post, French condemned what he described as racial profiling and harassment, writing that community leaders should have the courage to denounce such behavior. In another, he criticized those who downplayed racism, saying that people who insisted Americans should simply “get over it” were missing the point. Days later, he warned against those spreading what he viewed as racist rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Whether one agrees with those statements is not particularly important. What is important is that both officials established a clear principle: racism should be confronted, called out, and challenged. Silence was not an acceptable response. That principle seems reasonable enough. The question is whether it has been applied consistently. The Rise of Identity Politics That same year, Port Angeles became the site of another debate centered on race and representation. In September 2020, the Port Angeles City Council voted [https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/2020/09/17/port-angeles-city-council-to-diversify-board/] to restructure the Public Safety Advisory Board. The discussion was driven largely by concerns that the board was entirely white. The adopted ordinance added seats for tribal representatives and individuals with experience related to homelessness or substance use disorders. Councilmembers Mike French, Navarra Carr, LaTrisha Suggs, and Kate Dexter supported the measure. The debate was notable because it focused less on expertise and more on identity. Supporters argued that a board’s effectiveness depended in part on who was represented around the table. The argument reflected a broader trend in American politics. Increasingly, public institutions were being encouraged to view people not primarily as individuals but as members of demographic groups whose perspectives were presumed to flow from their ancestry, ethnicity, or lived experience. That philosophy continues to shape public discussions today. The Rawls Question At last week’s commissioner debate, incumbent Commissioner Mike French referenced political philosopher John Rawls while discussing fairness and privilege. “This is, I think, very classic John Rawls philosophy,” French said. “If you were to be reborn and had to reroll the dice, would you do it? I’m a white man in modern America that has had a very blessed life.” French was referring to Rawls’ famous “veil of ignorance” thought experiment. Rawls argued that a just society would be designed by people who did not know what position they themselves would occupy within it. The idea was intended to encourage fairness and empathy. It is a thoughtful exercise. Most people would agree that society should seek to reduce unnecessary barriers and create opportunities for success. The challenge comes when discussions about fairness become inseparable from discussions about race. Life does not divide neatly along racial lines. There are wealthy people and poor people in every racial group. There are people born into privilege who squander opportunities and people born into difficult circumstances who overcome extraordinary obstacles. Some of the most successful people in Clallam County are tribal citizens. Some non-tribal families struggle every day to make ends meet. Human experience is more complicated than demographic categories. Reducing individuals to racial identities may simplify political conversations, but it rarely reflects reality. The Double Standard Problem If racism is truly a problem that must be confronted wherever it appears, then the standard should apply consistently. Yet many residents have noticed that consistency often disappears when the target changes. Where, for example, were the public condemnations when Paula Allen wrote on social media [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/paula-allen-white-people-are-a-problem?utm_source=publication-search] that white people were a problem and that she was embarrassed to live among them? Where were the statements from elected officials denouncing those comments? Where were the calls for accountability? Similarly, county commissioners were made aware of comments attributed to Rae Hesselbach stating that “the wealthiest white men are a greater threat to safety than the unhoused.” Despite the controversy, commissioners unanimously appointed her to the Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board. No public statements followed. No emergency discussions were held. No resolutions were drafted. Many residents cannot help but notice the contrast. Had similar remarks been directed toward Native Americans, Black residents, or any other minority group, there is little doubt that local officials would have responded swiftly and publicly. That discrepancy undermines confidence in the principle itself. When standards are applied selectively, people begin to suspect that the issue is not racism but politics. Beyond Race None of this is an argument that racism does not exist. It does. But the constant emphasis on race as the primary lens through which society should view itself has produced diminishing returns. Instead of bringing people together, it often encourages them to view one another as competing groups with competing grievances. That is a troubling direction for a country founded on the idea that individuals possess equal rights regardless of ancestry. Two hundred and fifty years into the American experiment, Americans should be moving toward a society that judges people based on character, conduct, and contribution rather than racial categories. Public officials should be encouraging that vision, not reinforcing divisions that many citizens are trying to move beyond. The United States remains exactly that: United States. At least it should be. Too often, modern politics seems determined to remind us of what separates us while overlooking everything we still share. "Racism is not dead, but it is on life support—kept alive by politicians, race hustlers, and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as racists." — Thomas Sowell Today’s Tidbit: Broadband Funding for Some, Taxes From All The Washington State Department of Commerce is promoting nearly $790 million in new federal broadband funding opportunities available exclusively to tribal and Native entities. The grants, administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), are intended to expand broadband access, infrastructure, and digital connectivity on tribal lands. No one disputes the importance of broadband access. In today’s economy, reliable internet service is as essential as electricity and roads. What makes these programs noteworthy is who pays for them and who can receive them. The funding comes from federal tax dollars collected from all Americans. White taxpayers pay into the system. Black taxpayers pay into the system. Hispanic taxpayers pay into the system. Tribal citizens pay into the system. Yet eligibility for these particular grants is determined by ancestry and political status, not financial need. That raises an uncomfortable question. If a federally funded program were available only to white communities, would anyone hesitate to call it discriminatory? If not, why is it different when the beneficiaries are tribal governments? Supporters argue that tribes occupy a unique legal status recognized by treaties and federal law. Critics argue that taxpayer-funded programs should be available based on need, geography, or income rather than race or ancestry. Reasonable people can disagree on the answer. But they should at least be allowed to ask the question. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Yesterday1 h 19 min

"Rock Solid" Science?

When Clallam County Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry declared the science behind harm reduction "rock solid," she left little room for debate. But from Oregon's failed Measure 110 experiment to concerns raised by recovery advocates, public records, and even local data discrepancies, the evidence tells a more complicated story. If the science is truly settled, why are questions increasingly treated as attacks? At last week’s Board of Health meeting, Clallam County Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry offered an unequivocal defense of the county’s harm reduction programs. “The evidence on its efficacy is rock solid all across the country in urban areas and rural areas,” Berry told the Board. “It’s not new, it’s not strange. What we’re doing here is not atypical. It’s standard harm reduction practices.” She went even further. “Well, the data is very, very clear that it is the other way around. Harm reduction reduces people’s use of drugs. It makes them use less. It makes them less likely to die, less likely to get infectious diseases, and it makes them more likely to enter treatment.” Those are strong statements. They leave little room for the possibility that the evidence is mixed, incomplete, or still being debated. The problem is that the broader debate surrounding harm reduction is anything but settled. What Does Harm Reduction Mean? Harm reduction encompasses a wide range of programs intended to reduce the negative consequences of substance abuse. Supporters argue these programs keep people alive long enough to enter recovery and reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Critics argue some programs have drifted beyond reducing harm and instead normalize or prolong active addiction. The disagreement is not whether addiction is harmful. The disagreement is over which policies are most effective in helping people escape it. The Debate Berry Says Doesn’t Exist Berry’s comments suggest the evidence overwhelmingly supports current harm reduction practices. Yet significant questions continue to be raised by researchers, recovery advocates, elected officials, and communities across North America. Oregon’s Measure 110 experiment was promoted as a groundbreaking public health approach to addiction. Instead, overdose deaths continued to rise, and public dissatisfaction became so widespread that lawmakers ultimately reversed major portions of the policy. San Francisco has spent years investing heavily in harm reduction programs while simultaneously struggling with public drug use, overdoses, and growing concerns from residents and business owners. Even Vancouver, often held up as the model for harm reduction, faces criticism from recovery advocates who argue that treatment and recovery have become secondary to maintenance strategies. The point is not that harm reduction never works. The point is that serious debate exists. A policy surrounded by ongoing debate is difficult to describe as “rock solid.” Questions From Recovery Advocates During recent Board of Health meetings, long-term recovery advocate David Rogers has repeatedly challenged county officials [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/dr-berrys-response-challenges-recovery?utm_source=publication-search] to place greater emphasis on treatment, accountability, and pathways out of addiction. Rogers is hardly alone. Many families affected by addiction support treatment-first approaches and question whether the county’s current balance between harm reduction and recovery is producing the best outcomes. Reasonable people can disagree on those questions. What is more difficult to understand is why those questions are so often characterized as attacks. When Public Officials Get It Wrong One of the recurring themes in recent Board of Health discussions has been misinformation. Berry has frequently warned the public about misinformation regarding public health issues. Yet critics argue public officials themselves have made claims that deserve scrutiny. Jake Seegers highlighted several examples during public comment. In 2021, local COVID restrictions were justified in part by claims that vaccination significantly prevented transmission. At the same time, national public health agencies were acknowledging that vaccinated individuals could still contract and spread the virus. “High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.” — Statement from the CDC [https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid-19.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com], July 2021 From 2 Deaths to 10 In January 2019, the Peninsula Daily News reported that overdose deaths in Clallam County had fallen dramatically—from 10 deaths in 2017 to just 2 in 2018. Health Officer Allison Berry cited the figures as evidence that expanded access to naloxone was working, pointing to an Opioid Surveillance Dashboard maintained by public health officials. The numbers appeared to tell a compelling story. If accurate, they suggested overdose deaths had declined by 80 percent in a single year. However, only three months later, the same dashboard was updated. Instead of 2 overdose deaths in 2018, the revised total was 10—the same number reported for 2017. What had been presented as a dramatic decline disappeared entirely. The numbers may have changed because the original data was preliminary. But the larger issue remains. The public heard about the dramatic drop from 10 deaths to 2. Few people heard that the number was later revised back to 10. As Berry once again points to overdose statistics as evidence that harm reduction is working, some residents are asking a simple question: how much confidence should the public place in numbers that have changed so significantly before? The Importance of Verification Questions have been raised about county syringe accounting methods, including how distributed syringes are counted compared to collected syringes. Dr. Berry has stated that an empty Gatorade bottle can hold 40 collected syringes. Jake Seegers decided to test that claim for himself. It raises questions about the claim that the County is collecting more needles than it distributes. Most recently, questions have emerged regarding differences between overdose statistics presented in county reports and figures reported by the Coroner’s Office. Whether these criticisms are ultimately correct is less important than the broader principle: scientific claims should remain open to examination. Ignoring Warnings Critics also point to examples where warnings were raised to the County but dismissed. Dr. Berry’s proposed drug-checking program [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/how-close-clallam-county-came-to?utm_source=publication-search] was halted after concerns were raised by risk managers and the county’s insurance pool. Public records later revealed the extent of those concerns. Credit for uncovering those records belongs largely to Jake Seegers. Similarly, officials have frequently stated there were no significant issues associated with public pool shower vouchers, despite police reports documenting [https://www.ccwatchdog.com/p/pool-board-says-there-were-no-incidents?utm_source=publication-search] numerous incidents at the facility over the years. Again, the issue is not whether every criticism is correct. The issue is whether questions are being taken seriously. Questions Are Not Attacks Recently, the Clallam County Democrats circulated a newsletter containing the following statement: “Tozzer and Seegers are personally intimidating and threatening and harassing her regularly, along with their little brigade. Evidence is available on recordings of BOH and Commissioner meetings.” No examples were provided. That accusation gets to the heart of the issue. If the science is truly as “rock solid” as Berry claims, then it should withstand scrutiny. Questions about overdose trends, treatment outcomes, syringe counts, public safety incidents, and competing evidence should not be viewed as personal attacks. Science advances through challenge, debate, testing, and verification. The issue isn’t whether harm reduction works at all. The issue is whether public officials who claim certainty are willing to engage with evidence that suggests the story may be more complicated than they admit. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." — Richard Feynman Today’s Tidbit: Another Trust Land Application Filed The Jamestown Corporation has submitted another application to place property into federal trust status, according to a notice received by the Clallam County Commissioners on June 9. The application, filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, seeks to transfer approximately 8.63 acres into trust for use as residential sites. If approved, the property would be removed from the local tax rolls and transferred into federal trust ownership. The BIA’s notice specifically requests information from local governments regarding the amount of property taxes currently collected on the parcel, any special assessments, governmental services provided to the property, and whether the proposed use is consistent with local zoning. The application is part of a continuing series of trust land acquisitions by the Tribe. County officials have 30 days from receipt of the notice to provide comments to the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding the potential impacts of removing the property from the local tax rolls. Why it matters: Every individual trust land application may appear small on its own, but each approved transfer permanently removes property from local taxation while local governments continue to provide many regional services funded by remaining taxpayers. If you would like Clallam County to respond to the federal government's request for comment, let your county commissioners know. All three commissioners can be reached by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ccwatchdog.com [https://www.ccwatchdog.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

23. juni 20261 h 5 min

Ann Soule Wants Someone to Blame for High Gas Prices. She Forgot to Mention Washington State.

Description

Comments

1 month for 9 kr.

All episodes