Welcome to the VEB

**Afternoon Snark

Consumers went on a borrowing tear last month, increasing their debt loads at the fast pace in four months -- economists say much of it added to personal credit card balances.

"This represents distressed borrowing. Consumers need cash and they have turned back to their credit cards to fill the void left by lost jobs and weaker incomes," Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, told the Associated Press.

My guess is that consumers are hoping their rebate checks will be enough to pay off the bills. Then hope springs eternal.

--Mark Trahant

It's in the P-I

First up: Unless lightening strikes, the Democratic party has a nominee for president. This is a good thing because between now and November it would be ideal to focus on the issues and the stands of the two party picks. There are significant differences that ought to be debated, rather than the continued narrative of a horse race.

The job of finding a place for a jail is never easy. Seattle's prospects will be topic B in our morning meeting.

A bit about the Editorial Board process. The way it works is that in addition to the topics above (usually raised by the editor) each member of the board brings a list of ideas. We then talk -- almost debate -- these issues until we reach consensus.

We have three editorial slots most days -- so there is always more subjects left on the table.

Wonder who wrote the editorial? Look here. It's posted later in the morning.

Editorial plans

Joe Copeland is writing about the Seattle jails proposal. We think it's important to look at this issue, asking the public policy questions. What's most cost effective? What role should these jails play -- incarceration or holding facilities for trials? What's the best way for the city and county to sort out the complexity?
email: joecopeland@seattlepi.com

D. Parvaz is writing about the growing concern of youth suicides. The VA may not be up to the task at a time when one prediction says there may be more suicides than battlefield deaths.
email: dparvaz@seattlepi.com

Reader comments

Editorial about Seattle streetcars is moving reader discourse forward.

Apostle disagrees:

"In for a penny, in for a pound." Cute. If we're talking sayings, how about this one: "Don't throw good money after bad."

Just exactly how is a streetcar "efficient"? The SLUT costs more to operate than buses with the same capacity.

How about this? How about the P.I. find out how many fares have been paid for on the SLUT for the first four months of operation. Then find out how much it cost to operate the SLUT for those four months. Then find out how much subsidy there is per rider on the SLUT.

Then we can start to debate the "efficiency" of streetcars in Seattle, compared to buses. It seems to me that running 66,000-pound streetcars with an average of about 8 riders on each streetcar is not particularly "efficient."

Will the P.I. come up with those relevant financial numbers? Or will the P.I. continue to ask for more little toy trains to play with, with no concern over how much they cost?

However Marine Vet posits:

The streetcar plan I saw impressed me very much. I think the first priority should be to serve Freemont, Ballard and First Hill which will not have the benefit of the Light Rail. We really should look for a way to get a streetcar out to West Seattle as well. We could have had a monorail, but this city does not want to spend that kind of money--they've made that clear. The streetcars are slower than grade-separated transit, but they get people out of their cars, get them where they need to go and cost a whole lot less.

A column on gas consumption is also stirring reader comments.

rwb77 ponders:

It seems to me that one of things we need to do, if we're to truly reduce oil consumption, is to put people and jobs closer together. Some have pointed out, and rightly so, that it's too expensive for many people to live in major cities, and that forces long commutes from affordable locations (affordable being pre-$3 gas). I wonder if it would be possible, instead of trying to cram everyone into a small spot, or creating mega-mass transit which would be unaffordable to get everyone everywhere at anytime, to move jobs out of the major cities and into the suburbs where most workers live. I realize that might not sit well with some CEOs and big-city mayors, but it would reduce oil use by commuting workers.

Hauling more freight on railroads instead of by truck would be more efficient, too. Perhaps we should reconsider how road-centric our transportation spending has been, and how under-funded our railroad investments have been.

Thanks for dropping by. Discourse welcome.