Category Archives: Economy

Tim Eyman’s Libertarian Vision for Washington State

Posted on June 17th, 2013 | Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Libertarian Vision for Washington State

Tim Eyman’s political philosophy for Washington State is libertarian at heart. The problem is that the libertarian vision is no vision at all. Libertarians argue for a minimalist government and this is Tim Eyman’s approach on his initiatives. If one asks who is Tim Eyman most like in his ideas, both Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand come to mind.  There is seemingly no end point in how small government should be or how minimal taxes should be.

As E J Dionne wrote recently in the Washington Post  Libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel is that there is currently no country in the world that is libertarian run. That in itself should give voters pause as they blindly follow Eyman. It is a dead end for our state as education funding and other vital state functions get reduced and reduced until it’s only everyone for themselves.

Thinking about what Eyman’s approach leads to comes to mind because of an article I came across written by Andy Garber of the Seattle Times right before last year’s elections. Eyman’s two thirds vote requirement for the Washington State Legislature had not yet been overturned by the Washington State Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The  article was entitled “State ballots’ new twist: tax advisory votes“.

The article noted that Eyman’s Initiative 960 and and I-1185 on that November’s ballot not only required a 2/3 vote by the legislature to pass taxes but also added a” nonbinding public advisory vote” when lawmakers approved any tax increase no matter by what margin of votes or whose taxes were affected.

By Eyman’s definition repealing a tax loophole was a tax increase, even if the loophole provided no public benefit and transferred tax obligations to others.   In reality tax loopholes are tax expenditures – off budget spending of tax revenue to benefit a special interest or business but without the regular in depth scrutiny other state expenditures get during the regular biennial budget process. And with Eyman all taxes need to be opposed as runaway spending regardless of who pays or for what purpose.

Looking at the two advisory votes on the November 2012 ballot placed there as a result of Eyman’s I-960 and the response by Eyman as to what these votes meant points out the absurdity of Eyman’s libertarian slash taxes in all cases approach to dealing with public issues.

Here is the wording of advisory vote No 2 as set up by Tim Eyman’s language in Initiative 960.

The legislature extended, without a vote of the people, expiration of a tax on possession of petroleum products and reduced the tax rate, costing $24,000,000 in its first ten years, for government spending.
 This tax increase should be:

[  ]  Repealed

[  ]  Maintained

The voting public got no further explanation than the ballot title in the voter’s pamphlet, unlike initiatives and referendum which have an explanatory statement, a fiscal impact statement (not a 10 year cost projection) and no arguments for or against.

In addition the attorney general had no real ability to explain the issue in the ballot title since Eyman’s initiative 960 required that the ballot tile be written as:

The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, (identification of tax and description of increase), costing (most up-to-date ten-year cost projection, expressed in dollars and rounded to the nearest million) in its first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:
Repealed . . .[ ]
Maintained . . .[ ]‰

I have made bold  the mandatory wording required which by themselves are  intended to encourage people to vote to repeal any “tax increase”.

In the advisory vote No 2, voters voted  “to repeal” this “tax increase” by a vote of 55% to 45%. No campaign was run to urge voters to maintain the “tax increase” because it was only an advisory vote. If one had been run voters might have gotten more information on what this bill really did. The bill SHB 2590 passed the House by 93 yeas, 1 nay and 4 excused.  It passed the Senate by 40 yeas, 0 nays and 9 excused. It was supported by the Washington Oil Marketers Association and the Western States Petroleum Association.

In reality the “petroleum tax” was really an insurance program that particularly benefited all homeowners with underground oil storage tanks from liability caused by oil leaking from a tank. Cleanup fees from leaking oil pollution could easily exceed $10,000 to $20,000 in liability plus contaminated water problems. This was not a controversial bill and easily exceeded the then 2/3 vote requirement imposed by Eyman to raise taxes.

Yet Eyman’s myopic libertarian philosophy says all taxes are bad and should be opposed. His push poll style ballot title wording contributed to voters voting against “tax increases” even when those increases benefited taxpayers. That’s because for Eyman the issue isn’t about good government or responsible government. It’s about the least government possible.

Eyman’s response before the election according to Andrew Garber’s article was:

“Eyman said that if voters reject the taxes approved by lawmakers, he hopes the Legislature would repeal them.”   

The second advisory vote on the ballot was to repeal a tax break originally passed to help home state bank Washington Mutual, which went out of business.  It now only benefited large out of state banks  by eliminating B&O taxes they would otherwise have had to pay on interest on residential loans on 1st mortgages.

Again using Eyman’s push poll style ballot title the ballot title read:

The legislature eliminated, without a vote of the people, a business and occupation tax deduction for certain financial institutions’ interest on residential loans, costing $170,000,000 in its first ten years, for government spending.

This tax increase should be:

[  ]  Repealed

[  ]  Maintained

Again the public responded to the anti-tax bias in the ballot title and with no campaign supporting the measure and no further explanation, the public in their advisory vote mode voted 56.9% to 43.1% to repeal ending this tax break that didn’t benefit state taxpayers but did give a tax break to big out of state banks.

In Eyman’s world it is all black and white. Taxes are bad. Government is bad. And those that follow blindly after him are hurting their own self interest and the state’s ability to fund program that benefit the public. Fortunately the advisory votes were only “advisory”.  But knee jerk public reaction to be anti tax in Eyman’s libertarian world only leads to people blindly followed his pied piper like lead over the cliff as they respond without thinking.

Eyman this year continues his assault on state government by proposing a new initiative to the legislature to limit all tax increases to one year until the state puts on the ballot a constitutional amendment to  require a 2/3 vote to raise any revenue or repeal any tax exemption. This would turn over to a 1/3 minority faction of legislators veto power over a majority of legislators. It seems Eyman’s libertarian views are not held by the majority of Legislators elected so he needs to try to change the rules to let a minority of legislators run the state. Voters need to reject Eyman’s libertarian government takeover proposal by not signing  his initiative and vigorously opposing it if it makes it onto next year’s ballot.

Comments Off on Tim Eyman’s Libertarian Vision for Washington State

Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Right Wing, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , ,

Senator Warren says give students same break as banks

Posted on May 14th, 2013 | Comments Off on Senator Warren says give students same break as banks

Unless Congress acts by July 1, 2013 student loan rates will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. Meanwhile banks borrow money from the US Government at only .75%.  Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has filed a bill to give students the same loan rate as banks for a year.  Why should taxpayers be supporting banks – a private interest over a public interest – helping students to complete college.

In a Huffington Post article entitled Elizabeth Warren: Student Loans Should Have Same Rate Big Banks Get and in an article by Joan McCarter on Daily Kos entitled Elizabeth Warren: Students should get the same loan rate as big banks  a video is included of Warren’s statement before the US Senate:

“Some people say that we can’t afford to help our kids through school by keeping student loan interest rates low,” said Senator Warren. “But right now, as I speak, the federal government offers far lower interest rates on loans, every single day–they just don’t do it for everyone. Right now, a big bank can get a loan through the Federal Reserve discount window at a rate of about 0.75%. But this summer a student who is trying to get a loan to go to college will pay almost 7%. In other words, the federal government is going to charge students interest rates that are nine times higher than the rates for the biggest banks–the same banks that destroyed millions of jobs and nearly broke this economy. That isn’t right. And that is why I’m introducing legislation today to give students the same deal that we give to the big banks.”

“Big banks get a great deal when they borrow money from the Fed,” Senator Warren continued. “In effect, the American taxpayer is investing in those banks. We should make the same kind of investment in our young people who are trying to get an education. Lend them the money and make them to pay it back, but give our kids a break on the interest they pay. Let’s Bank on Students… Unlike the big banks, students don’t have armies of lobbyists and lawyers. They have only their voices. And they call on us to do what is right.” 

Daily Kos, joined by the Center for American Progress  goes a step beyond just reporting the story and posting the video by including a link to urge people help push this legislation by urging their Senators to co-sponsor this legislation.  Click on this link to tell the Senate to give students the same low interest rates the big banks get

Please help build support for this bill by joining in this effort.

 

 

Comments Off on Senator Warren says give students same break as banks

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Economy

Tagged ,

Eyman’s Proposed Initiative Continues his Libertarian Attack on State Government

Posted on April 24th, 2013 | Comments Off on Eyman’s Proposed Initiative Continues his Libertarian Attack on State Government

Tim Eyman’s latest proposed initiative continues his right wing libertarian approach to try to shut down state government.  He is proposing to limit tax increases to one year and push for repeated votes at tax payer expense for  minority rule that would let a 1/3 minority of Legislators run our state government by taking over the Washington State  Legislature.  It is a recipe for disaster.

Our current problem in the legislature is not one of over taxation but of out of control tax expenditures given by Legislators to special interests. The state has a revenue problem – giving away tax exemptions instead of collecting revenue.  See http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/2012/Exemption_study_2012/Intro_and_Summary_of_findings.pdf

Take B&O taxes listed in the 2012 State Tax Exemption Report -on B&O taxes on business – the state gave out 176 tax breaks totaling some $7.5 billion while collecting only $6.5 billion in revenue. The exemptions were 54% of the potential tax base.

The 2012 Tax Exemption Study also stated that in the 2011 – 2013 budget some $21 billion was collected in B&O taxes and sales/use taxes.  At the same time some $20 billion in these same taxes was not collected and was essentially an expenditure of state funds to support those that got the exemption.

The state currently has some 640 tax exemptions in place. Under a 2/3 Constitution Amendment tax expenditures could be put in place by a majority vote but would require a 2/3 vote to repeal.

A 2/3 vote constitutional amendment would lock in all these exemptions that are forcing higher taxes on those that pay and don’t get an exemption.  It is a recipe for disaster.

Eyman’s  anti-tax hysteria  borders on the ludicrous. It serves no purpose but to push a radical philosophy exposed by those like Grover Norquist and Tea Party fanatics to shut down government.  It is irresponsible and harmful to the state government and Washington State’s residents. It would prevent significant tax reform and benefit special interests and corporations while hurting those who need state help. It would prevent adequate funding of education and other essential state services.

People need to say NO to Eyman’s  continued anti-tax monologue. Enough is enough.

Comments Off on Eyman’s Proposed Initiative Continues his Libertarian Attack on State Government

Posted in Economy, Initiatives, Right Wing, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , ,

Washington State Supreme Court Rules Eyman Supermajority Votes Unconstitutional, Republicans Push for a Constitutional Amendment

Posted on March 5th, 2013 | Comments Off on Washington State Supreme Court Rules Eyman Supermajority Votes Unconstitutional, Republicans Push for a Constitutional Amendment

In a 6 to 3 decision this last week the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that that Tim Eyman’s  Initiative 1053’s supermajority provisions for passage of revenue measures by the State Legislature was unconstitutional. In fact it went beyond revenue measures and said any attempt to require supermajority votes not in the Washington State Constitution was unconstitutional.

The decision stated that, Article II, sec. 22 of the Washington State Constitution “prohibits either the people or legislature from passing legislation requiring more than a simple majority for the passage of tax legislation – or any other ordinary legislation”. Despite this language Majority Leader Rodney Tom in the Washington State Senate immediately tried to figure a way to change the Senate rules to require a two thirds vote to raise taxes by the Legislature.

On the same day the Court issued their opinion, the Olympian reported that Tom said:

“We’re going to stand behind the will of the people. They’ve been very clear that they want it to be difficult to raise taxes,” Tom said today.

The rule would require a two-thirds supermajority or a public vote to pass any tax increase.

And passing the rule would take only a simple majority of all senators, unlike a constitutional amendment that is much less likely to pass.

Seems that legal counsel finally convinced Tom that the Washington State Supreme Court ruling also applied in principle to any rule making by the Legislature. By that didn’t stop him from trying to consider it. Here’s what the Supreme Court said about allowing a 1/3 minority of Legislators to overrule a majority:

Article II, sec. 22  “prohibits either the people or legislature from passing legislation requiring more than a simple majority for the passage of tax legislation – or any other ordinary legislation.”…

They also stated  that) “The Supermajority Requirement unconstitutionally amends the constitution by imposing a two-thirds vote requirement for tax legislation.

More importantly, the Supermajority Requirement substantially alters our system of government, thus enabling a tyranny of the minority.”

The telling words here to listen to are not so much that requiring a supermajority vote to raise revenue was unconstitutional but that it allowed a 1/3 minority of legislators in one House of the Legislature to veto any majority vote of the rest of the Legislators. Under this system the minority vote prevails and the minority rules, not the majority.

It is a negation of the idea of one person one vote, saying that on revenue issues, including repealing any tax loopholes, that  a State Legislator opposed to raising revenue  had the equivalent of 2 votes for every one vote that a State legislator had that supported raising revenue. The result was that the No vote of 17 State senators out of 49 Senators could negate the Yes votes of 32 Senators.  The minority position would win out which is what happened in almost all cases in the State Legislature while the 2/3 voting mandate was in place.

One could similarly make an argument that incumbents have an unfair advantage in running for office and need to be term limited. The equivalent to I-1053 in this instance would be if the voters agreed and passed an initiative saying that any incumbent Legislator running needed to get a supermajority vote to win or his opponent would win. Following the logic of I-1053, if the incumbent got 64% of the vote, but did not receive the 2/3 supermajority vote, then his opponent would win, even though he only got 36% of the vote. The goal of limiting re-election of incumbents would be accomplished by this action which lets a minority of voters make the decision as to who gets elected. Most voters seeing the results would cry foul. Fortunately this example is also now void as the Washington State Supreme Court specifically noted that Article II, sec. 22 of the Washington State Constitution “prohibits either the people or legislature from passing legislation requiring more than a simple majority for the passage of tax legislation – or any other ordinary legislation“ (highlighting mine).

Tim Eyman and his corporate donors for I-1185 which voters passed this last November argued that raising taxes should be harder than passing other legislation and that was why they should prevail. This is a political philosophy that represents the conservative Republican position. Yet running on that position against Democrats they have not been able to elect a majority of Republicans to the House or Senate in recent years. This year two so called Democratic Legislators, Senator Rodney Tom of the 48th LD and Senator Tim Sheldon, joined with 23 Republicans to take over the State Senate.

There is a clear difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue that still persists. Republicans and Rodney Tom in the Senate rapidly passed SJR 8205 – Amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature to raise taxes,  out of the Ways and Means Committee to the Rules Committee, 2nd reading. Fortunately for those who agree that allowing a minority position to prevail over the votes of a majority is undemocratic, the State Constitution put amending the State Constitution in a select category of legislation requiring a 2/3 vote by both the Senate and the House and a majority vote of the people in order to pass.

The State Constitution is the framework of state government and as such should be more difficult to amend than passing a general law or raising revenue or repealing tax exemptions which the voters can put on the ballot by referendum or elect new legislators who can change the law.  The absurdity of Eyman’s I-1053 and I-1185 2/3 voting mandate was that it allowed Legislators to pass tax exemptions by a simple majority vote but required a 2/3 vote to repeal them.

Eyman’s measures were strongly supported by corporate business interests like BP Oil, Conoco Phillips, Association of Washington Business, the Beer Institute and others which sought to both avoid any business tax increases or repeal of any of their tax loopholes. It was a Corporate Tax Loophole Protection Act not an act which helped most residents in Washington State because it resulted in the inability of the Legislature to raise new revenue or reform our tax system.

As noted by the broad based Washington coalition called Our Economic Future we have now cut about $10 billion dollars from the State Budget.  State college tuition has doubled in 4 years. It now costs to go to State Parks. State employees and teachers have lost their jobs. Public K-12 education funding has gone down. All kinds of funding to help the needy, handicapped, kids, and unemployed have decreased.  The future of our state’s economy is under attack as businesses and corporations report record profits.  We need a balanced approach to taxation and funding to help the people of Washington State move into a better future.

Contact your State legislators today and urge them to oppose SJR 8205 – Amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature to raise taxes.  Go to www.leg.wa.gov and let your Legislator know you oppose a Constitutional Amendment to give a minority of Legislators veto power over the majority.

 

Comments Off on Washington State Supreme Court Rules Eyman Supermajority Votes Unconstitutional, Republicans Push for a Constitutional Amendment

Posted in Democrats, Economy, General interest, Initiatives, Republicans, Right Wing, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Turncoat Democrats Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon Turn State Senate over to Republicans

Posted on January 15th, 2013 | Comments Off on Turncoat Democrats Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon Turn State Senate over to Republicans

On Monday two Washington State Senators elected as Democrats  became Turncoats and turned control of the Washington State Senate over to the elected Republican minority. So much for party loyalty and adhering to the supposed principles and beliefs they ran on. The print edition of the Seattle Times headline says it all – “Senate power shifts into GOP hands“.  The two Democrats who bolted the Democratic Party are Rodney Tom of the 48th LD in Medina and Tim Sheldon from Mason County.

Yesterday culminated a month long process that was already in play and not a surprise. Calling themselves the Majority Coalition Caucus is a joke.  The GOP heavy “coalition” is comprised of the 23 Senators actually elected as Republicans and two Senators elected as Democrats but who have now joined with the Republicans to run the Senate.  This shift gave the new “majority” a 25/24 vote margin and the ability to take over.

Rodney Tom was originally a Republican who switched it appears now mostly in name only to the Democrats when he ran last time. Tom and Sheldon both benefited heavily personally in this power switch with Tom becoming the new “majority” leader and Sheldon the president pro tempore. Both Tom and Sheldon were involved in a similar power shift at the end of last year’s budget process in the Legislature.

Rodney Tom is up for election in two years and the Democrats in the 48th LD last week passed a resolution condemning Tom for his actions:

The following resolution was adopted by the 48th Legislative District Democrats by a vote of 30-8, including Senator Tom’s vote against.

–Phil Kouse, 2013-2014 Chair

State Senate Leadership Rightfully Belongs
to the Elected Democratic Majority

Whereas

the 48th District Democrats, according to our bylaws, exist “to contribute to the growth, development and influence of the Democratic Party” and to “support … those candidates who, by their records and reputations, are in general agreement with the [party] platform;” and

Whereas

State Senator Rodney Tom was elected as a Democrat in 2006 and 2010 with the endorsement of, and financial and volunteer support from, the 48th District Democrats and other Democratic organizations and elected officials; and

Whereas

Senator Tom has announced his intentions to oppose ratification of the Senate leadership and committee chairs chosen by the elected Democratic majority, instead installing Republicans to chair important committees, including Healthcare, K-12 Education, Judiciary, and Ways & Means; and

Whereas

Republican control of the Senate would be a barrier to enacting legislation that advances Democratic goals and values, such as funding for K-12 education, broadened access to higher education, mental health counseling, insurance parity for reproductive care, and implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act (“Obamacare”);

Therefore, be it resolved

that State Senator Rodney Tom is advised to vote to ratify the leadership chosen by the elected Democratic majority caucus; and

Be it further resolved

that by failing to vote for this leadership slate, Senator Tom will be thwarting Democratic values and the will of the people, rendering himself ineligible for our future endorsement and support under our bylaws.

Adopted this 9th day of January 2013, by the 48th District Democrats

A similar resolution is being considered by the King County Democrats and it is expected that the Washington State Democrats will likewise condemn Rodney Tom when they meet the beginning of February. Rodney Tom’s actions have pretty much guaranteed that if and when he runs for re-election in 2014 that this seat will be hotly contested. Likewise Democrats statewide will need to make a concerted effort to try and pick up other Senate seats to ensure that they have a real Democratic majority.

Between now and then don’t expect much to get done by the legislature on raising new revenue or repealing unneeded and costly tax loopholes.  If action is to be taken in these areas it will have to be undertaken through an initiative from the people or at best a referendum by the legislature.  The problem is that Republicans are so knee jerk anti-revenue, cut government only, that things may well get worse before they get better for the state budget and the state economy.

Comments Off on Turncoat Democrats Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon Turn State Senate over to Republicans

Posted in Democrats, Economy, Elections, Republicans, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , ,

Washington State’s 2013 Minimum Wage Remains Highest in Nation

Posted on January 14th, 2013 | Comments Off on Washington State’s 2013 Minimum Wage Remains Highest in Nation

On Jan. 1, 2013 Washington State’s minimum wage increased by 15 cents to $9.19 per hour.  Washington State’s minimum wage is the highest in the country. Nine other states minimum wages were also increased on Jan 1, 2013.  As noted in the Huffington Post:

Nearly a million low-wage workers will see their earnings rise because of the increases, most of which come courtesy of state cost-of-living adjustments that account for inflation. Washington State will once again have the highest minimum wage in the nation, at $9.19 per hour, after a raise of 15 cents for the new year. The other states raising their wage floors are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The federal minimum wage remains $7.25 per hour, with no cost-of-living adjustment, and prevails in 31 states that do not mandate a higher state minimum wage. The last raise to the federal minimum came in 2009, after a series of increases signed into law by President George W. Bush.    

The increase in the state minimum wages are as follows:

Washington State – increased 15 cents to $9.19/hr

Arizona – increased 15 cents to $7.80/hr

Colorado – increased 14 cents to $7.78/hr

Florida – increased 2 cents to $7.69/hr

Missouri – increased 10 cents to $7.35/hr

Montana – increased 15 cents to $7.80/hr

Ohio – increased 15 cents to $7.85/hr

Oregon – increased 15 cents to $8.95/hr

Rhode Island – increased 30 cents to $7.75/hr

Vermont – increased 14 cents to $8.60/hr

Except for Rhode Island’s minimum wage increase approved by their Legislature last year, the rest of the increases were the result of   state laws indexed to inflation and the consumer price index. Nevada, which also adjusts their minimum wage based on inflation, makes their changes on July 1st and is not included in the current list above.

Washington state was the first state to index their minimum wage to inflation when they passed Initiative 688 in 1998. Oregon followed with an initiative in 2002 and  Florida in 2004. In 2006 there was a big push nationally to index the minimum wage to inflation, with voters in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana and Ohio passing minimum wage initiatives.

The US Department of Labor  has a color coded map which breaks out state’s minimum wages by categories. Amazingly five states – Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina – have no state minimum wage laws.  Four states – Georgia, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Wyoming – have a state minimum wage lower than the federal minimum wage of $7.25.  Twenty states have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 and the rest of the states set their minimum wage at the Federal level.

Legislation has been before Congress to try to index the federal minimum wage to inflation, the same as Washington State does, but Republicans in Congress have prevented action on moving the legislation. Congress has a dismal record on dealing with increasing the Federal minimum wage.  As the Labor Law Center   notes,  Congress increased the minimum wage to $5.15 in 1997.  It took another 10 years to increase it to $5.85 in June of 2007, then $6.55 in June of 2008 and $7.25 in June of 2009. It has not increased since then.

As noted in the Huffington Post article:

Last year, Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives introduced legislation known as the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which would have raised the federal minimum wage to $9.80 per hour after three years and indexed it to inflation. Those bills failed and are expected to be reintroduced in the coming Congress, although the Republican-controlled House is unlikely to pass an increase to the minimum wage.

President Barack Obama, while campaigning in 2008, pledged to hike the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour and index it by the end of 2011, “to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage,” as he said on his transition website. Obama ultimately failed on that pledge and hasn’t been vocal on the issue since his initial campaign. As EPI has noted, if the federal minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since its high in the late 1960’s, it would now be above $10 per hour.

Further action can be taken on the state level via both legislative efforts and initiative efforts.  For example, as Minnesota Public Radio reports,   the new legislative majority in Minnesota has prioritized raising their minimum wage and indexing it to inflation.

State Sen. Chris Eaton, DFL-Brooklyn Center, is sponsoring legislation to increase the minimum wage for large employers by $1.35 an hour to $7.50 an hour, and provide for automatic inflationary increases in the future. “Putting more money in the pockets of minimum wage earners is good for the whole economy,” Eaton said. “The money is going to be spent in local businesses, on job training courses and covering rent.”

The Initiative and Referendum Center lists 24 state’s that have the initiative process.  While it is more difficult in some states than others to get on the ballot, there are 15 additional states that could pass state minimum wage initiatives that are indexed to inflation. They are Alaska, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. A couple of big states like California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan passing new state minimum wage initiatives indexed to inflation would give a big boost to efforts to enact such legislation in Congress.

Minimum wage legislation indexed to inflation is a progressive issue and could certainly boost turnout of Democratic voters in key states and help elect a more Democratic Congress keyed to helping average citizens rather than boosting corporate profits and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.  This is something to keep in mind regarding the 2014 and 2016 elections where members of the House and Senate are running.

Also as Henry Ford knew when he paid his workers higher wages than other industries, he was providing them with income to buy his cars. People working at or near minimum wages are barely getting by and are not going to put their money in a savings account.  They are going to spend it which keeps the money in circulation stimulating the economy. This helps everyone.

Comments Off on Washington State’s 2013 Minimum Wage Remains Highest in Nation

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Initiatives

Tagged , , , ,

Reasons to Vote NO on Initiative 1185

Posted on November 3rd, 2012 | Comments Off on Reasons to Vote NO on Initiative 1185

 Here is a list of articles and editorials giving reasons why to VOTE NO on TIM EYMAN’S INITIATIVE-1185:

Budget and Policy Center – Six Reasons Why Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes Are a Bad Idea
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3678

Washington Budget and Policy Center – Supermajority Law’s Damaging Legacy: I-1185 Would Renew A Policy That Has Eliminated Jobs and Thwarted Economic Recovery in Washington State http://budgetandpolicy.org/reports/supermajority-laws-damaging-legacy

SeattlePI.com –  Chamber – Surprise ‘no’ to Eyman Initiative  http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/12/chamber-surprise-no-to-eyman-initiative/

The News Tribune – I-1185 Voters: Don’t also Expect more state services
www.thenewstribune.com/2012/09/14/2295776/i-1185-voters-dont-also-expect.html

Northwest Progressive Institute – Initiative 1185 – an Attack on Democracy
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2012/10/initiative-1185-an-attack-on-democracy.html

Everett Herald – Vote No on Eyman’s I-1185
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121004/OPINION01/710049968#Vote-no-on-Eymans-I-1185

Crosscut – I-1185: Will the Circle be unbroken on Eyman tax measures?
http://crosscut.com/2012/10/12/elections/110902/eyman-initiative-i1185-election-voter-guide/?_cs=1#c38276

The Daily World – Endorsements-“No” on 1185 & 502, yes on gay marriage“-    http://thedailyworld.com/sections/opinion/columnist/endorsements-%E2%80%94-%E2%80%9Cno%E2%80%9D-1185-502-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-gay-marriage.html

Majority Rules – Corporate Oil and Beer Profits Fuel Eyman’s I-1185 Signature Drive http://www.majorityrules.org/2012/06/corporate-oil-and-beer-profits-fuel-eymans-i-1185-signature-drive.html

Permanent Defense – complete text of King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller’s decision in LEV v. State, the lawsuit filed by teachers, parents, and lawmakers against Tim Eyman’s Initiaive 1053.
http://www.permanentdefense.org/materials/searchable-text-of-ruling-in-lev-v-state/ –

Comments Off on Reasons to Vote NO on Initiative 1185

Posted in Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , ,

Beware the Romney Business Plan to Take Over America!

Posted on June 24th, 2012 | Comments Off on Beware the Romney Business Plan to Take Over America!
Under the Romney Business plan to grow our economy,  expect the rich to suck taxpayer money out of our government as they get richer. That’s his “successful” business model that he used at Bain Capital. Now he and the Republicans are touting this successful business experience  as a reason to vote for Romney and spread his plan  across America.
Under Romney we can expect more corporate control  of public services and investment in areas like health care, increased privatization of public schools,  and banks and investment companies running social security. Free enterprise to Romney and the conservatives under the Bain capital model would mean putting profit over public good.
For many Government is there to protect the public good over private gain, that is unless you are a conservative in America. The Bain Capital model of business was the accumulation of wealth by it’s investors, regardless of the consequences to its workers and the community it was in.
To see the real life consequences of this business model one just needs to looks at how Romney made his fortune. As detailed in the New York Times article entitled, “Companies’ Ills Did Not Harm Romney’s Firm“
Mr. Romney’s experience at Bain is at the heart of his case for the presidency. He has repeatedly promoted his years working in the “real economy,” arguing that his success turning around troubled companies and helping to start new ones, producing jobs in the process, has prepared him to revive the country’s economy. He has fended off attacks about job losses at companies Bain owned, saying, “Sometimes investments don’t work and you’re not successful.” But an examination of what happened when companies Bain controlled wound up in bankruptcy highlights just how different Bain and other private equity firms are from typical denizens of the real economy, from mom-and-pop stores to bootstrapping entrepreneurial ventures.       Bain structured deals so that it was difficult for the firm and its executives to ever really lose, even if practically everyone else involved with the company that Bain owned did, including its employees, creditors and even, at times, investors in Bain’s funds.”
So what does Romney propose to do for the takeover of America under this business model.  Well he and his conservative right wing friends propose to take over the US Government and run it like a business.  In his mind, his friends and mega-contributors are his investors . His goal is basically a  takeover of our Public Government and turning over the profits to his wealthy friends and corporate America. Their goal is to privatize most services now provided by Government to help its citizens.
The profits of course are whatever taxes are still paid by the so called workers of America.  Romney’s corporate and wealthy individual investors see our Government as another opportunity to take from the people and transfer more wealth to themselves. The so called investors  will put the minimum in taxes into the government to give the appearance that they are participating but their goal is to figure out how to maximize what they can withdraw from the Government for themselves..
Do you think I am joking?  Look at what he is proposing to do in Public Education.  It a profit maker for his investors if he can privatize it by Charter Schools and vouchers guaranteed by the government.  They are already getting tax dollars via on line schools where they sign up as many people as possible for paying tuition by advancing them loans and getting federal guarantees for payment, regardless of the qualifications of the students to complete the courses. It is similar to what the banks and mortgage companies did to homeowners, ignoring their ability to qualify for repayment and then reselling the so called qualified loans to others for a profit.
 Diane Ravitch in the New York Times Review of Books writes about Romney’s recently released education plan in an article entitled “The Miseducation of Mitt Romney”. His main focus is that turning public education over to the private for profit sector is the answer to our education future:
“The central themes of the Romney plan are a rehash of Republican education ideas from the past thirty years, namely, subsidizing parents who want to send their child to a private or religious school, encouraging the private sector to operate schools, putting commercial banks in charge of the federal student loan program, holding teachers and schools accountable for students’ test scores, and lowering entrance requirements for new teachers. These policies reflect the experience of his advisers, who include half a dozen senior officials from the Bush administration and several prominent conservative academics, among them former Secretary of Education Rod Paige and former Deputy Secretary of Education Bill Hansen, and school choice advocates John Chubb and Paul Peterson. …
Romney offers full-throated support for using taxpayer money to pay for private-school vouchers, privately-managed charters, for-profit online schools, and almost every other alternative to public schools.”
As to public colleges and the for profit free enterprise opportunities  they represent to Romney’s investment partners in America, Ravitch says that:
 “Romney will encourage private sector involvement in higher education, by having commercial banks again serve as the intermediary for federal student loans, an approach Obama had eliminated 2010 as too costly. (Until 2010, banks received guaranteed subsidies from the federal government to make student loans, while the government assumed nearly all the risk. When the program was overhauled by the Obama Administration, billions of dollars in bank profits were redirected to support Pell Grants for needy students.)  To cut costs, Romney encourages the proliferation of for-profit online universities.”
We have seen this turn the taxpayer dollars over to the private sector in other areas of Government and it would be accelerated under Romney. Privately run health care in the US is the most expensive in the world.  Romney wants to repeal and defund the Affordable Health Care Act and keep health care in the for profit private sector.  Costs continue to escalate. The Affordable Health Care Act limited the profit part of health care to 20% and even that is too little for Romney’s private sector business model.  The goal of corporate America is to maximize profits, not maximize the health of America’s citizens.  That model allowed private health care insurance companies to deny insurance to people, including children with pre-existing conditions.  It allowed insurance companies to drop people’s health care insurance when they got sick.  It allowed them to write policies that were woefully inadequate in covering major illnesses.
There is a reason for government involvement in health care and it is an ethical one.  Someone needs to put the health and welfare of our citizens over the profits of the corporate health care insurance system.  When Sara Palin said there were death panels she was right.  But it wasn’t the Government, it was private insurance companies denying coverage or cancelling coverage for health care for Americans.  Romney wants to abolish the Affordable Healthcare Act and put private for profit corporations in control of your health care.
In March in USA Today Romney  wrote:
“…It is past time to abolish the program, root and branch. …
… the case against ObamaCare extends far beyond questions about its constitutionality. President Obama‘s program is an unfolding disaster for the American economy, a budget-busting entitlement, and a dramatic new federal intrusion into our lives.It is precisely for those reasons that I’ve opposed a one-size-fits-all health care plan for the entire nation. What we need is a free market, federalist approach to making quality, affordable health insurance available to every American. Each state should be allowed to pursue its own solution in this regard, instead of being dictated to by Washington.”
What he’s really saying is that his investors backing him do not want the Federal Government limiting their profits or regulating how they do business. But our system is broken and continuing it as it is would be  a tragic mistake for America. Heath care run for profit as we’ve seen with the Bain Capital business model would put profit over people’s lives and quality of health care.
An article in the Huffington Post last year reported that:
“The nation’s health care tab is on track to hit $4.6 trillion in 2020, accounting for about $1 of every $5 in the economy, government number crunchers estimate in a report …

How much is that? Including government and private money, health care spending in 2020 will average $13,710 for every man, woman and child, says Medicare’s Office of the Actuary.

Compare it to this year, when U.S. health care spending is projected to top $2.7 trillion, about $8,650 per capita, or roughly $1 of $6 in the economy. Most of those dollars go to provide care for the sickest people.

Along with rising costs, the report found that the share of the health care tab paid by the government keeps growing, approaching half the total. …

…the United States continues to spend far more on health care than other economically developed countries. The study by the Commonwealth Fund found that U.S. health care spending per person in 2008 was more than double the median – or midpoint_ for other leading economies. ” 

If you followed Romney’s business practices to maximize profit to his private investors, expect that the same way he putting maximizing profit of his investors over retaining or creating jobs, he would as president let insurance companies once again drop patients that were costing too much and also allow insurance companies to pick and choose who they decide to insure in the first place.  There is nothing inherently ethical about creating profit but there is about caring or not caring for and helping America’s sick.  That is why keeping  health care protection as a public good is necessary. The Romney Business Takeover Model to maximize profit for the few regardless of the cost and pain to the many needs to be rejected.

America can not afford to elect Romney and adopt the Romney Business Model of maximizing profits for the wealthy few. They are  pushing what is essentially a hostile takeover of public education and  health care and other services now provided by our Federal Government and want to privatize as much as possible for private gain. Creating wealth for a few at the expense of the many is a recipe for disaster for our country.

Comments Off on Beware the Romney Business Plan to Take Over America!

Posted in Democrats, Economy, Elections, Obama, Republicans

Tagged , , , , , ,

Corporate Oil and Beer Profits Fuel Eyman’s I-1185 Signature Drive

Posted on June 12th, 2012 | 2 comments

It’s a strange combination but corporate oil and beer profits fuel the signature drive  for Eyman’s current initiative. Oil and water may not mix but it looks like oil and beer profits do. Latest reports from the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission show corporate interests dumping in most of the $964,713 reported for Eyman’s I-1185 campaign to re-enact a 2/3 voting requirement by the legislature to raise revenue.

This latest million dollar corporate campaign to restrict the Washington State Legislature’s ability to raise funds is happening despite the recent King County Superior Court decision declaring that the 2/3 vote restriction in Initiative 1053 is unconstitutional. The decision by Superior Court Judge Bruce F Heller was issued on May 31, 2012. While this decision  will likely be reviewed by the Washington State Supreme Court.  Judge Heller’s Memorandum Opinion is pretty clear and simple.

Heller decleared  that “The majority provision of Art. II, Section 22 is a clear restriction on the legislature’s power to require more than a majority vote for passage of tax measures. This restriction applies to statures  initiated by the legislature and to statues passed pursuant to voter initiatives,  While initiative measures reflect the reserved power of the people to legislate, the people in their legislative capacity remain subject to mandates of the Constitution,  Gerberding, 134 Wn.2d at 196.  RCW 43.135.024(1) is therefore unconstitutional.”

Despite this clear decision corporate interests persist in trying to prevent the Legislature from voting to directly raise revenue to fund basic state needs or to recoup revenue lost to non performing or under performing tax exemptions that are not benefiting  Washington state or its citizens.

On May 16, the Beer Institute  out of Washington DC dropped in $400,000 dollars to help pay Citizen Solutions, Eyman’s signature gathering firm.  BP Oil out of Chicago, Il added $100,000 as did Conoco Phillips Company out of Washington DC. The Washington Restaurant Association added $25,000.

Meanwhile the Association of Washington Business  acting to shield the true source of their money, paid $185,000 directly to Citizen Solutions. It was reported as an In Kind donation by Eyman. Where did the Association of Washington Business get the money from? Their public disclosure report shows that they received $100,000 from the  American Beverage Association in Washington, DC and another $100,000 from Tesoro Companies in San Antonio, Texas. In addition they got $50,000 from Equilion Enterprises in Houston Texas, and $50,000 from Shell Oil Company in Sacramento, California.

In a press report where Jay Inslee, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Washington accused the Assocation of Washington Business of collecting money from Tesoro to support Inslee’s Republican opponent Rob McKenna, the AWB  denied the accusation and said the money was passed on to Citizen Solutions to pay for collecting signatures on I-1185.

Big corporate interests are again looking out for their bottom line. Oil companies love it that Eyman is using his anti tax mantra to promote a measure that helps protect their profits.  Eyman is selling his snake oil potion to the citizen taxpayers of Washington State as something that benefits them. Unfortunately what it does is lock in a regressive tax system that soaks low income taxpayers and lets corporate profiteers off the hook for new taxes and prevents the legislature from repealing special interest tax breaks oil companies and others  enjoy.

Oil companies are opposing a State Legislative proposed  increase in the toxic substances tax that would have been used to clean up stormwater runoff contaminated by oil byproducts.  Here in Washington state oil companies are soaking up profits like mad as our gasoline prices are the highest in the nation.  We pay higher gas prices so they can pay Eyman to put in place a measure that would stop the legislature from charging them to help clean up an environmental problem caused by toxic oil in stormwater runoff entering our strearms, rivers and Puget Sound. Gas prices right now are the highest in the lower 48 states.

Three of the companies contributing to Eyman’s campaign are Shell oil companies.  Besides Shell itself, Tesoro Industries and Equilon Enterprises are affiliated with Shell. Equilion is doing business in Washington State as Shell Oil Products and has a crude oil refinery in Anacortes, Washington. Tesoro Industries also has a refinery in Anacortes and markets under the Shell name among others. In 2010 there was an explosion at the Tesoro Refinery at Anacortes, Washington that killed 5 workers.

Can Shell afford to help Tim Eyman? I suppose their  $8.7 billion dollar profit in the first quarter of 2012 left them with some spare change. BP Oil reported a profit of $5.9 billion and Conoco Phillips a profit of $2.9 billion.  To them a few hundred million to prevent the Washington State Legislature from having them help pay for cleaning up oil contaminated stormwater runoff is just another small investment in protecting their profits.

The taxpayers of Washington State, who are paying the highest gas prices in the United States, are the suckers unfortunately who suffer from both oil contaminated water and a regressive tax system that doesn’t tax the wealthy the same as lower income brackets. This is because Eyman’s 2/3 vote requirement for raising revenue or repealing corporate tax exemptions forces the legislature to cut public services like education and health care for seniors and children rather than do tax reform and make the system fairer and more equitable.

 Washington voters and taxpayers  need to wake up to the reality that letting a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators in one House dictate tax policy benefits the wealthy and Big Corporations a lot more than moderate and low income working families. Why else are the Oil and Beverage Companies funding I-1185?  It’s their corporate profits that’s driving their actions, not their civic altruism.

Don’t sign I-1185 or vote for it if it makes the ballot. 

FF35A82HGCT5

2 Comments

Posted in campaign finance, Economy, Environment, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , ,

Big Oil Loves Tim Eyman

Posted on May 10th, 2012 | Comments Off on Big Oil Loves Tim Eyman

Big Oil loves Tim Eyman.  They love him so much they’re have given him $200,000 this year to protect their corporate profits and tax loopholes from the Washington State Legislature. They love it that he helped them two years ago prevent the Legislature from asking them to help clean up oil polluted stormwater in our state. They love it that voters said the Legislature needed a 2/3 vote to tax corporations and end profitable tax loopholes they have.

Eyman is busy carrying their water as he scurries to pay his minions to get signatures on I-1185 his “son” of 1053. I-1053 was passed by voters in 2010 and said the Legislature needed to get a 2/3 vote in both houses to raise new revenue or close any tax loopholes. For 2 years after an initiative passes it takes a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to amend an initiative. After that it takes a simple majority.

So Eyman is trying to put I-1185 before the voters to reset the clock for another 2 years.

The 2/3 vote requirement initially was in I-601 and then in I-960.  Both these measures barely passed 51% to 49%. Two years ago in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression and with high unemployment the measure passed with a 64% vote after opponents waited until the last few weeks to try to oppose it but it was too late.

Now voters can see the consequences of a no new taxes proposal which is what I-1185 is and what I-1053 is.  Austerity so to speak is another w0rd for protecting corporate profits while cutting services to the elderly, the sick and young kids.  Corporate interests like BP and Conoco Phillips continue to rack up huge profits and contribute to the increased concentration  of wealth in the hands of the few.

On April 4, 2012 BP Oil out of Chicago gave Eyman $100,000. Eyman immediately passed it on to his buddy Roy Ruffino at Citizen Solutions out of Olympia.  Citizen Solutions is paying signature gatherers $1.00 per signature and pocketing a fee for itself of course.

BP last year reported a net profit of $23.9 billion. $ 100,000 is peanuts to BP.

On April 20, 2012 Conoco Phillips added another $100,000,  Small peanuts to them also that they  can write off as a business expense. After expenses Conoco Phillips reported a 1st quarter Jan – March 2012 profit of $2.94 billion.

Isn’t it great that if you are a big corporation and you can buy yourself a place on the ballot and you can have friends like Tim Eyman to help you fool the public into supporting your corporate profits at the expense of diminishing public services that benefit the public.

Don’t sign I-1185!  Don’t support Big Oil’s power grab of the Washington State Legislature. Big Oil is not concerned about the well being of Washington State or its citizens. They are only concerned about increasing the bottom line of their business and their shareholders.

 

 

 

Comments Off on Big Oil Loves Tim Eyman

Posted in campaign finance, Economy, Elections, Initiatives, Tax Exemptions, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,