Tag Archives: Washington State

Eyman’s I-1033 Says Paying Corporate Property Taxes More Important than Educating State’s Children

Posted on September 2nd, 2009 | Comments Off on Eyman’s I-1033 Says Paying Corporate Property Taxes More Important than Educating State’s Children

Initiative 1033 on this November’s ballot is Tim Eyman’s clone of a failed Colorado measure. It proposes to freeze state and local government programs permanently by limiting the growth of tax revenue to the current year’s spending plus a slight adjustment for inflation.

Any money over this year’s spending as adjusted will go into a special account to reduce property taxes. What Eyman hasn’t told anyone is that 40% of this special tax break will go to Washington businesses and corporations. That’s because the fund must reduce all property taxes equally. And currently 40% of property taxes are paid by businesses.

And of the remaining 60% in the fund only 65% of that will go to help homeowners who own their home. The other 35% of households in the state will not see any tax break or return on their taxes they paid. They lose twice because they also will not see any increase in public services as a result of their paying taxes over the baseline.

Initiative I-1033 is a complex measure that actually turns out to provide a special tax break to property owners at the expense of not providing public services.

If you collect tax dollars like sales taxes everyone pays does it make sense to use them to give a special tax break that benefits wealthy property owners at the expense of not providing public services like educating our kids or paying for public safety or having libraries open and parks open?

Colorado has tried Eyman’s proposed freeze on public services since 1992. Looking at how they now fund education will gives us a frightening glimpse of Washington State’s future if voters pass I-1033.

I came across the following website, www/teachersalaryinfo.com which graphically compares 5 different factors on teacher salaries across the country. The information below is taken from this website.

The average teacher’s salary in Colorado compared to median household income showed Colorado ranking 49th (with 1 being the highest) among the 50 states. An estimate showed that teachers in Colorado made about $32,000 below the median income.

Another graph showed Colorado teachers ranking 50th lowest in salary compared to other states. Washington State by comparison ranked 24th lowest – and we know the lack of funding currently in this state to raise teacher’s salaries.

Another graph shows Colorado’s average teacher salary compared to the median home price in Colorado as 44th lowest out of 50 states.

Is this the future for Washington State if voters approve I-1033? You can’t freeze education spending under I-1033 and expect that there will be any spare change to raise teacher’s salaries in the future. In fact because many public services like Medicaid and education increase in cost faster than the consumer price index adjustment in I-1033, cuts will have to be made to existing services as their costs rise faster than the consumer inflation index.

Colorado once ranked 35th in education spending. It’s now 49th because of this problem.

So you decide – is it more important to give wealthy property owners and corporations a special property tax break or help our children get a quality education by investing our tax dollars in them?

I think we’ll all lose if we don’t fund our educational system and have good teachers. How many teachers are going to stay in Washington State if we are competing with Colorado to see who can pay the educators of our children the least amount of money? Is this another Eyman brilliant idea or not?

Comments Off on Eyman’s I-1033 Says Paying Corporate Property Taxes More Important than Educating State’s Children

Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , ,

Why I-1033 Limits on Spending Growth Won’t Work

Posted on August 7th, 2009 | Comments Off on Why I-1033 Limits on Spending Growth Won’t Work

Colorado has had the experience of living under the growth limits on government spending that Tim Eyman is proposing with I-1033 . The Colorado measure was called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights or TABOR. It was passed by Colorado voters in 1992 as a constitutional amendment and placed strict limits on spending by local and state government. The end result was a drastic decease in public services in Colorado.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a good analysis of some of the many problems Colorado has had and you can go to their website for more detailed information.

I’ve reproduced a section below from their website which addresses some of the specific problems that exist with inflation and population only growth limits like Eyman proposes in I-1033. The magic potion Eyman claims I-1033 is, is actually a very toxic potion that will act as a poison on our state in many ways.

Limiting government spending to only population and inflation growth each year like I-1033 does creates real problems and does not provide for growth of services. It is in the best of times a freeze on government programs and in the worst of times actually decreases government services.

Here the analysis done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based on the real experiment with this legislation in Colorado that points out some real problems.

“Why a Population plus Inflation Growth Formula Cannot Provide a Constant Level of Public Services

There are several reasons why states cannot provide a constant level of public services under a population-plus-inflation formula.

■No existing measure of inflation — neither the Consumer Price Index nor the GDP deflator nor any other measure — correctly captures the growth in the cost of the kinds of services purchased in the public sector. State governments, for instance, are major purchasers of health care, the costs of which are rising far faster than the general rate of inflation.
■In most states, a rising share of the state population is utilizing public services. For instance, the number of senior citizens in most states is rising faster than the general population, putting new burdens on programs such as Medicaid.
■States often face the burden of providing new or expanded services for reasons outside the control of lawmakers. These include court mandates to increase school funding or other services, response to natural disasters or public health emergencies, major economic shifts such as plant closings, or other reasons.
■In an era of large federal deficits, states are increasingly expected to finance a substantial share of new domestic priorities. Some of these expectations take the form of formal mandates, such as the additional education expenditures required under the No Child Left Behind law. Others may reflect what one analyst has called “underfunded expectations,” such as the expectation that states and local governments will provide heightened levels of security as part of the war on terrorism.
■New public priorities may require new funding from states above and beyond levels of inflation. Recent state initiatives in areas such as K-12 class size reduction, prescription drug coverage for seniors, college scholarships for students with high levels of academic achievement, and other initiatives generally cannot be accommodated under the population-growth-plus-inflation formula.
It is important to note that all state programs — not just those with cost pressures exceeding the population-growth-plus-inflation level — are threatened by a rigid population-growth-plus-inflation limit. This is because such limits typically cover nearly all areas of state and local spending. So, if one spending area is forced to grow faster than the rate allowed under the limit (for instance due to court order, federal mandate or popular demand), then another spending area must grow at a slower pace — which is to say that in terms of the level of service provided, that second spending area must actually shrink.”

We don’t need to repeat the Colorado experience in Washington State. Vote No on Initiative 1033 this November 3rd. Keep local control of government services and keep government flexibility to respond to changing needs.

for more information on the campaign go to www.no1033.com

Comments Off on Why I-1033 Limits on Spending Growth Won’t Work

Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , ,

Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1033 Overtaxed Hoax

Posted on July 22nd, 2009 | Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1033 Overtaxed Hoax

Washington’s state and local tax burden last year was ranked 35th (1 is highest) according to the conservative Tax Foundation. These figures include both state and local property taxes in their calculation.

These and other figures below are taken from data available at the Tax Foundation’s website and point out the misrepresentation of Washington’s tax situation as espoused by Tim Eyman and Initiative 1033.

The preamble of I-1033 claims that it is “to protect taxpayers by reducing our state’s obscene and unsustainable property tax burden by controlling the growth of government to an affordable level.” An another point it references “our state’s crushing property tax burden.”

Yet is it such a crushing burden compared to other states?

Analysis by the Tax Foundation showed Washington State ranking 23rd (1 is highest) in terms of property taxes on owner occupied housing. The figures are given in terms of median real estate taxes as a percentage of median home values. Washington State had a value of .82% for 2007, which came in 23rd when compared to the other states.

Some other higher state values for comparison are Texas 1.84%, Ohio 1.3%, Pennsylvania 1.39%, Illinois 1.53% and Michigan 1.38%.

Two comparable neighboring states were Oregon at .80% and Montana at .82%. California came in at .50%, below the national average which might explain some of their budget problems.

Another table compared state spending per capita. In 2007 Washington State spent $5780 per capita. This ranked us number 19 (1 is highest). Again not an alarming figure.

Another interesting figure was looking at income per capita. Washington State ranked 8th highest in income per capita at $48,574 in 2008. Income is obviously an indication of ability to pay taxes.

Ironically Washington State does not have an income tax even though an income tax is a fairer tax than a sales tax or property tax. If you have no income you pay no income tax. But property tax you have to pay whether you’re working or not. This is also the case with a sales tax when you buy goods. And the business B&O tax is on gross receipts not net.

It is easy to demagogue issues like taxes which no one likes to pay. But taxes pay for basic services like police and fire protection, public safety, transportation, parks, education, health care for children, libraries, colleges, environmental protection, and help for the disadvantaged and elderly.

People want these services while not wanting taxes. But just like it costs money to maintain your home so it doesn’t fall apart, taxes help to maintain our society. While taxes may be a burden, it’s questionable whether they are an overburden for most people in Washington State.

We certainly could use a fairer tax system. An income tax is one you pay only if you’re making money but people like Eyman have demagogued against that and politicians are afraid to make a change. Yet it is fairer than a sales tax which hits lower income people the hardest.

But I-1033 is not the answer to tax reform. It only makes things worst because it transfers money collected by sales taxes everyone pays to reduce taxes on property owners. This includes reducing taxes for large corporations like Boeing and Weyerhauser and shopping mall owners and real estate developers. The more property you have the more you’ll benefit. I-1033 is basically another Eyman wealth transfer scheme from the poor to the wealthy who own property.

Eyman is correct when he says “during these tough economic times, struggling families and fixed income senior citizens desperately need and deserve meaningful property tax relief” The key word is “meaningful.” I-1033 is not meaningful property tax relief for working families or fixed income senior citizens.

Meaningful property tax relief would be targeted to help those that need help most. I-1033 doesn’t do that. The most relief goes to the largest property owners and those with McMansions and second homes.

Real property tax relief would be a targeted homestead exemption, exempting the first $50,000 or $75,000 of the property tax evaluation on your principal residence from taxation. Many other states do that.

Also circuit breaker legislation would provide relief, by also helping renters. Eighteen states have circuit breaker legislation to help lower income homeowners. Some 35% of Washington households are not owner occupied according to the Census Bureau.

Initiative 1033 is not the answer. It is not meaningful property tax relief for those who need it most. Vote No on I-1033 in November.

Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1033 Overtaxed Hoax

Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , ,

New Report Confirms Initiative 1033 Will Make Recovery Worse for Washington State

Posted on July 18th, 2009 | Comments Off on New Report Confirms Initiative 1033 Will Make Recovery Worse for Washington State

A just released report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government confirms analysis that Initiative 1033, if passed by voters in November, will likely make economic recovery in Washington State more difficult. While not directly addressing I-1033, the negative impact of the initiative is clear from the current economic figures.

Steeply declining revenue would reset the baseline from which next year’s inflation plus population growth would occur under I-1033. Analysis by the Washington State Budget and Policy Center notes that deceases in revenue during a recession will permanently lower the baseline and revenue to fund government services in future years.

The Rockefeller Report is entitled “State Tax Decline in Early 2009 was the Sharpest on Record“. Overall it notes that “State tax collections for the first quarter of 2009 showed a drop of 11.7%, the sharpest decline in the 46 years for which quarterly data are available. Combining the census Bureau’s quarterly data with its annual statistical series, which extends back to 1952, the most recent decline in state tax revenues was the worst on record.”

The figures given for Washington State in the report in Table 9 points to a 13.2% drop in sales tax and a 9% overall drop in quarterly state tax revenue comparing the January – March 2008 revenue to the January – March 2009 revenue.

The report also notes in looking ahead for all states that “The January – March quarter was the worst on record for states. The worst decline in sales tax in 50 years represents historic weakness in one of two major tax sources for states. Preliminary data for the April – June quarter suggest that fiscal conditions deteriorated even further …Such extraordinary weakness in revenues, along with continued if more moderate growth in expenditures, make widespread budget shortfalls highly likely this year.”

For Washington State a decreased revenue baseline under I-1033 will mean the emergency budget cuts this year become permanent budget cuts. There will be no new money to reduce classroom size or fund educational reform. Cuts to state health care are permanent. Cuts to all state services will not be restored. And future budget cuts due to the recession lowering the state’s revenue baseline will be necessary.

A state budget that only keeps pace with inflation and population growth under I-1033 is at best only able to keep pace with decreased purchasing power and increased population growth. An ever decreasing ability to fund government services under the recession resetting baseline that I-1033 mandates allows its sponsor Tim Eyman to follow in the footsteps of conservative Grover Norquist and his goal to continually reduce government spending and drown it in the bathtub.

The problem with this philosophy is that it doesn’t track reality. The free market economy does not solve many of society’s problems. Government is needed to help meet basic needs and provide balance and legal protections from those motivated by self interest and greed. History has shown us the shortcomings of societies that only serve the privileged few. It is the vision of being compassionate and providing legal protections and helping people that sets us apart from those like Eyman that make it their life’s mission to berate government serving people.

Taxes provide police and fire protection, free libraries, health care, roads and buses and sidewalks, education, environmental protection, parks and much more. Those that berate taxes like Eyman too often demagogue the issues while using these public services.

Eyman for example went to Washington State University and received a subsidy of his education because public tax dollars paid part of the cost. Maybe he should refund what the state paid for his education. Likewise he went to public school – maybe he should refund what others paid for his education there.

One could go on and on – the point is that government is not some evil leach sucking up tax dollars. It is providing benefits day in and day out that we all use and too frequently take for granted. Taxes are part of the cost we pay to live in our society. While no one really likes to pay taxes, we all benefit from the multitude of services government provides.

You can also find a write up of the Rockefeller Institute report in today’s New York Times.

Comments Off on New Report Confirms Initiative 1033 Will Make Recovery Worse for Washington State

Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , ,

Are Incumbent King County Councilmembers Going to Get a Free Ride this Year?

Posted on April 29th, 2009 | Comments Off on Are Incumbent King County Councilmembers Going to Get a Free Ride this Year?

Five King County Council races are up for election this year. Officially filing for these seats is June 1 through June 5, 2009. That is only a month away. And so far according to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, the only candidates who have filed with the PDC and who are raising money are the 5 incumbents.

The incumbents are:

Position #1 Bob Ferguson
Position #3 Kathy Lambert
Position #5 Julia Patterson
Position #7 Pete von Reichbauer
Position #9 Reagan Dunn

The current composition of the King County County is 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Sure, voters last year passed the Republican sponsored measure to make the seats nonpartisan but that doesn’t change the political stripes of the candidates. All that did was make it harder for voters to know what candidates really stood for. Republicans pushed for the change to make it easier for them to fool voters as to their political allegiances.

Of the incumbents running this year, Bob Ferguson and Julia Patterson are Democrats. Kathy Lambert, Pete von Reichbauer and Reagan Dunn are Republican.

Of the remaining King County Councilmembers not up for election this year, Dow Constantine, Larry Phillips and Larry Gossett are Democrats. Jane Hague is a Republican.

Both Phillips and Constantine are running for King County Executive to fill the seat being vacated by Ron Sims who is going to serve in the Obama Administration as the Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Human Services. Also running for County Executive are Democrats Ross Hunter and Fred Jarrett. Susan Hutchison is representing the hopes of the Republicans and was a supporter of Mike Huckabee for President last year.

Anyone wanting to run for King County Council this year and challenge the incumbents will have some catching up to do in fundraising. The incumbents are not sitting by doing nothing. Here are the figures for their contributions received followed by their expenditures to date.

Bob Ferguson $76,766 …$51,895
Kathy Lambert $49,458 …$15,875
Julia Patterson $86,825 …$16,803
Pete von Reichbauer $146,210 …$21,135
Reagan Dunn $229,810 …$126,970

Democrats are missing an opportunity to challenge the incumbent Republican candidates by not fielding opposition candidates. You can’t increase the number of Democrats on the King County Council if you don’t challenge the Republicans. Based on the past votes for Democratic Presidential candidates in King County, certainly one of these Republican occupied seats could flip Democratic if a real challenger emerged .

Two years ago Democrats missed an opportunity to pick off a Republican when they didn’t file a candidate to challenge Republican Jane Hague who was arrested on a DUI. It looks like once again 3 Republican King County Councilmembers will go unchallenged.

The Primary this year is August 18, 2009. The General Election is November 3, 2009.

Comments Off on Are Incumbent King County Councilmembers Going to Get a Free Ride this Year?

Posted in Elections

Tagged , , , ,

Senators Murray and Cantwell Vote for Another Tax Break for Wealthy

Posted on April 8th, 2009 | Comments Off on Senators Murray and Cantwell Vote for Another Tax Break for Wealthy

Maybe Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are angling for the endorsement of the Seattle Times next time they’re up for election. They are certainly not working for most of the citizens in Washington State when they voted last week to raise the Federal estate tax exemption for the very wealthy.

Senators Murray and Cantwell joined forces with all 41 Republicans and 8 other Democrats in a Senate vote that would remove $91 billion over ten years from the Federal budget. As the blog Working Life said, “Ten Senate Democrats Lose Their Minds, Vote for Estate Tax Cut”

“Now, c’mon, this is entirely absurd. We already have the widest gap between rich and poor in many generations. Republicans (and some Democrats) are trying to cut the Administration’s proper and wise investments in infrastructure and wise energy efficiency programs. And, in the midst of all that, the Senate does what? Votes to cut the estate tax (which effects only the richest Americans) thanks to the votes of ten Senate Democrats. This is the definition of insanity.”

As the New York Times notes today in an editorial entitled “Guarding the Family Fortune” :

“…as the unemployment rate hit a 25-year high and nearly one in 10 Americans was receiving food stamps, 10 Democrats in the Senate joined all 41 Republican senators to cut estate taxes for the wealthiest families….With economic pain and suffering on the rise, how do the senators justify a big tax cut for multimillionaires?”

Who are the other Senators joining this Reagan/ Bush era philosophy of trickle down economics – that you can’t do enough to help the wealthy because they keep the county growing? They are Senators Lincoln Blanche (Arkansas), Max Baucus (Montana), John Tester (Montana), Evan Bayh (Indiana), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Bill Nelson (Florida), and Mark Pryor (Arkansas).

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites states:

“This proposal is both fiscally irresponsible — it would pave the way for a significant increase in long-term deficits and debt — and unnecessary to protect small businesses and farms, nearly all of which are already exempt from the tax under the 2009 estate tax rules, which President Obama has proposed to extend. The amendment also would lead to significant reductions in charitable contributions, while benefiting only the wealthiest 0.28 percent of estates.”

As the NY Times editorial cited above states:

“Under today’s estate tax, which is retained in both the House version of the budget and in President Obama’s version, 99.8 percent of estates will never owe any estate tax. That’s because the tax applies only to estates that exceed $7 million per couple or $3.5 million for individuals, and a vast majority of American families are not and never will be that wealthy. “

It seems to me that Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell are missing the larger picture. Washington State voters recently voted to retain the state estate tax to help fund schools. With the increased concentration of wealth in a very small percentage of the population, it’s time for the wealthy to give back some of the money they made thanks to benefits of the US economic system that made it possible. After all, they can’t spend it after they’re dead. But they can do whatever they want with it while they’re living.

Comments Off on Senators Murray and Cantwell Vote for Another Tax Break for Wealthy

Posted in Congress, Tax Exemptions

Tagged , , , , ,

Washington State Minimum Wage to Increase Jan. 1, 2009

Posted on December 16th, 2008 | Comments Off on Washington State Minimum Wage to Increase Jan. 1, 2009

On January 1st, 2009 the Washington State Minimum Wage will increase by 48 cents. The new minimum wage will be $8.55. The current minimum wage is $8.07.

Washington State’s new minimum wage will still be the highest in the country. Oregon’s minimum wage will go to $8.40 on Jan 1, 2009. California, Connecticut and Massachusetts’s minimum wage will all be $8.00 in 2009. Montana’s 2009 minimum wage will be $6.90 and Idaho will be at $6.55.

Washington’s minimum wage is adjusted each year to make a cost of living adjustment based on the Federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. (CPI-W). This is done every September by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

As we noted in a previous post on this year’s minimum wage,

The wage adjustment takes place each year because in 1998 Washington voters passed Initiative 688. with a 66% yes vote. The initiative is fairly brief but it was the first in the nation to require that the minimum wage be increased each year to reflect any increase in inflation.

The current Federal minimum wage is $6.55 and will go to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. For 10 years the national minimum wage was stuck at $5.15. Increasing the minimum wage was the first thing Democrats did when they took control of both houses of Congress in 2007.

Unfortunately while more and more states are indexing their state minimum wages to inflation like Washington State did, the national minimum wage bill passed by Congress in 2007 did not index it to inflation. This is a task next year’s Congress and President Obama must remedy by passing new legislation to index the Federal Minimum Wage to inflation.

As the Economic Policy Institute in 2005 noted:

Without an automatic inflation adjustment, states are forced to go through a
political process each year to guarantee workers’ living standards from year to
year. Indexing for inflation provides a sustainable solution to the problem of
declining real wages for the lowest-paid workers and should be enacted at both
the state and federal level.

Congress is forced to go through a political process each time it wants to raise the Federal minimum wage. Now that the Democrats control Congress and the White House it is time to update the Federal Minimum Wage Law by indexing it to inflation and adjusting it annually.

This is done for Social Security and eliminates increases being tied to politics. In 2007 to get support from Bush and conservatives in Congress the minimum wage increase was accompanied by some $4.8 billion in tax breaks for business. Yet studies have consistently shown that minimum wage laws do not negatively impact businesses in any serious way.

Comments Off on Washington State Minimum Wage to Increase Jan. 1, 2009

Posted in Economy

Tagged , ,

Governor Chris Gregoire Deserves to be Re-elected

Posted on October 20th, 2008 | 2 comments

Democratic Governor Gregoire has been one of Washington State’s best Governors. Her problem is that she is not one to toot her horn but she has been busy making our state better and addressing the problems we face. If she has a weakness it is in communicating just how good a Governor she has been.

She has a good record of accomplishments to run on. For example during her 4 years we have seen action on a number of environmental issues.

Under her watch we have seen Washington State step up to addressing cleaning up Puget Sound – a long overdue action.

The state passed the Clean Car Act to join with California and other states in dealing with increasing fuel efficiency that the Bush Administration refused to address.

The state has enacted a bill to deal with toxic toys that the Bush Administration also refused to act on.

Legislation was passed to support local agriculture and to provide locally grown food to schools.

Green Jobs legislation was enacted to start Washington state on the road to new jobs and cleaner energy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Gregoire has been active in dealing with climate change, including the Western Governor’s Initiative and the Washington Climate Action bill.

These issues cover just a few of the changes Governor Gregoire has helped to implement.

Meanwhile what can you think of that Republican Dino Rossi has done in the last four year’s to address these or other issues?

Besides smiling and saying he’s for change, what has Rossi done in the last four years on these issues? Nothing. He is running a blank slate campaign – he is talking in non-specific sound bites and ignoring the issues so no one really knows what he will do because he won’t tell us.

That blank slate campaign approach almost got him elected last time.It would be a mistake for Washington voters to repeat the mistake made with George Bush.

Maybe you want to go get a drink with Dino after watching his ads because he seems like such a nice guy but do you really want to trust someone with our state’s future who is running a blank slate campaign and refusing to tell the public want he will do as Governor besides cut the budget.

And even then he isn’t telling you what he would cut. The public deserves and needs more honesty from someone running for Governor. Too much is at stake.

Rossi’s smile in fact is only a campaign gimmick – a technique Rossi learned through his years in real estate. As quoted in the Seattle Times, “I’ve found you can do pretty much anything you want if you do it with a smile on your face,” Rossi said. “It’s amazing what you can get away with if you do it with a smile on your face.”

Voters deserve more than a smile. They deserve someone that will be straightforward and tell them what they believe and what they intend to do. Rossi refuses to do that.

Chris Gregoire has a strong public record and is not afraid to speak out about her positions. She has proved herself to be a competent and capable Governor.

I urge you to vote to re-elect Chris Gregoire as Governor of Washington State on November 4th… She has stepped up and done the job to help protect our environment and move our state in the right direction. She has earned our vote of support.

2 Comments

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Environment

Tagged , , , , , ,

Rossi to Fight Supoena in BIAW Lawsuit

Posted on October 10th, 2008 | Comments Off on Rossi to Fight Supoena in BIAW Lawsuit

In a press release earlier today, Knoll Lowney of Smith & Lowney stated that:

“Today, lawyers for gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi indicated that Rossi will fight the subpoena that requires him to testify under oath as to his role in the illegal fundraising campaign of the Building Industry Association of Washington(“BIAW”), which is currently being prosecuted by the State Attorney General. “

You can catch the current King 5 news report here on YouTube.

You can see last week’s King 5 news reports here.

Lowney noted that a separate lawsuit was filed last week by former Washington State Supreme Justices Faith Ireland and Robert F. Utter regarding Republican Rossi’s alleged collaboration with the BIAW’s massive fundraising effort to swing the Governor’s race in favor of Republican Rossi.

The BIAW has a war chest of $3.5 million which it is spending opposing incumbent Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire and supporting Republican Dino Rossi. Under state law contributions directly to candidates are limited to $1600 per election for state wide office.

No such limit apples unfortunately for so-called independent PAC’s which is what the BIAW is claiming their PAC’s like ChangePAC and It’s Time for a Change are. But independent means just that – there can be no collaboration between the candidate and the so-called independent committee.

The irony here is that the BIAW actually asked for an interpretation of what independent meant in 2004. The answer seems pretty clear. In a memorandum dated June 15, 2004, written by Susan Harris, Assistant Director of the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission she stated a no answer to the following:

Tim Harris, General Counsel for BIAW, has asked whether a candidate may solicit funds for a political committee (PAC) that would make independent expenditures in support of that candidate, if the candidate:
(1) has no say with respect to the spending of the PAC or other content of the message;
(2) would not encourage or approve the actual specific expenditure; and
(3) would not otherwise collaborate with any PAC officials regarding the expenditure?

Staff believes the answer to the question is no. Not all of the elements of an Independent Expenditure as defined in RCW 42.17.020(24)(a) could be satisfied.

….., the definition of “independent expenditure” includes a four part test in RCW 42.17.020(24)(a). Each of the four parts must be met in order for the expenditure to satisfy the definition. The circumstances posed by BIAW fail two of the four parts.
Specifically, subdivision (iii) requires that the spender not be a person who has received the candidate’s “encouragement,” and subdivision (iv) says the candidate and the spender may not have “collaborated for the purpose of making the expenditure,” when the expense pays for political advertising supporting that candidate or opposing that candidate’s opponent.

Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary defines “encourage” as: “1. To inspire with hope, courage or confidence: HEARTEN; 2. To give support to: FOSTER; 3. To stimulate.”

One of the most fundamental ways a candidate could encourage a person to purchase political advertising supporting that candidate is to help make sure that person has sufficient funds to undertake an effective advertising effort. Assisting a PAC in fundraising fosters that committee’s ability to make the political advertising expenditure benefiting the candidate. As such, the PAC expenditure is not sufficiently removed from the candidate to qualify as an independent expenditure.

Collaborate” is defined in Webster’s as: 1. To work together, esp. in a joint intellectual effort; 2. To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupying one’s country.

Staff is of the opinion that if a candidate solicits contributions for a PAC by, for example, referring potential contributors to the committee, putting a link to the PAC’s website on his or her campaign website, or referencing the PAC in his or
her own campaign literature, then the candidate and the PAC are working together for the purpose of making a political advertising expenditure. That collaboration disqualifies any resulting expenditure from the definition of independent expenditure.
Based on a reasonable application of the definition of independent expenditure that is consistent with the intent of the statute, staff is recommending the Commission find that if a candidate assists a PAC in fundraising and the PAC then undertakes political advertising supporting that candidate or promoting the defeat of that candidate’s opponent, that expenditure does not satisfy the definition of “independent expenditure.”
Examples of fundraising assistance include helping the PAC identify potential contributors, referring potential contributors to the PAC, and referencing the PAC on the candidate’s website or in his or her literature.

If the BIAW and Rossi had complied with this memo they would not be in court now. My guess is that the BIAW decided to ignore this memorandum, realizing they could spend millions of dollars supporting Rossi and the worst they would face would be a fine of a few thousand dollars. The cost of trying to skirt the laws and put Republican Rossi in the Governor’s seat would be a pittance compared to what the BIAW would gain by having their ally as Governor..

Maybe the Court should fine them the total amount of their illegal campaign spending. That would certainly get their attention.

Comments Off on Rossi to Fight Supoena in BIAW Lawsuit

Posted in campaign finance, Elections

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Most of Initiative 985 Money to go for Road Building

Posted on October 2nd, 2008 | 1 comment

What a surprise. The bulk of the money siphoned by Initiative 985 from the Washington State General Fund will go for “increasing road capacity”. It’s not really about carpool lanes or traffic synchronization, except as a gimmick to convince voters to set up a special fund to “increase road capacity.”

Initiative 985 is really a stealth attack to siphon money now committed to education and public safety in the state budget and spend it for building more roads – an approach that has been shown elsewhere to not reduce congestion but just increase more cars on the road.

Eyman likes to say it will not increase taxes but the reality is it will take new taxes to make up the cuts in money now allocated to other state programs like education and public safety in the budget or it will entail cutting education and public safety.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management has released their revised financial impact of Initiative 985 to be in the voter’s pamphlet.

Their analysis does a breakdown of where the approximately $573.9 million dollars, mostly siphoned out of the state’s general fund over 5 years, will be spent.

The bulk of this money will come from the 15% transfer of sales and use taxes on motor vehicles from the general fund to Eyman’s congestion fund.

After you do an initial synchronization of traffic lights just how much money is needed each year to keep such a system operating? The state’s Office of Financial Management estimates some $65 million over 5 years would be spent.

The cost of opening carpool lanes is the most expensive, some $224 million over 5 years to install and modify variable speed limit and lane use control systems.

Just how many tow trucks are needed and what does this cost? The OFM estimates some $18 million over 5 years would be spent.

Some $312.9 million is left over for “other projects.”

After the initial cost of setting up this traffic gimmick proposal over 5 years, the money left over for “other projects” will continue year after year to accumulate in Eyman’s Traffic Congestion Fund.

The key point is that I-985 is really a Trojan Horse Initiative. Besides the above named items, the money removed from the State’s General Fund and deposited in Eyman’s special account can only be spent according to I-985 on “any other purpose which reduces traffic congestion by reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles”

The kicker is that I-985 says that “Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail.”

Yes this is the fine print on the back of the initiative most people never read before they signed the initiative. The ultimate result if I-985 passes will be to set up an ongoing fund committed to more road building. After the initial setup costs, the bulk of the collected money can only be spent on building more roads and not for transit or other projects that are proven to reduce congestion. Initiative 985 is an anti-transit proposal.

Increasing road capacity only puts more cars on the road, which when filled to the new capacity becomes congested. This is what other cities around the county have learned is the result of building more roads for more vehicles rather than spending the money on buses and public transit and park and ride lots.

I-985 is a failed approach to solving congestion problems. It deserves a resounding NO vote by Washington State voters.

An added note. Considering that the bulk of the money ultimately goes for road building, why did Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office not write the ballot title and summary to more accurately state what the majority of the money will be spent on over time? Why did they not mention that the money can not be used for things like transit or park and ride lots?

All in all the ballot title obscures the real impact of what the initiative does and does not accurately reflect the long term impact of the initiative.

You can read the ballot title and summary below:

Ballot Title Initiative Measure No. 985 concerns transportation.This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Ballot Measure Summary This measure would: open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all vehicles Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday; require traffic light synchronization, and mandate increased funding for roadside assistance. Certain existing revenues, including 15% of state sales and use taxes on vehicles, certain traffic infraction penalties, and certain tolls would be dedicated to traffic-flow purposes.

You can read the text of the Initiative 985 by going to the Secretary of State’s website page on current initiatives.

1 Comment

Posted in Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , , , ,