Goldy

The Washington Education Association, the union that represents the state’s K-12 teachers, was an enthusiastic backer of Gov. Chris Gregoire during the last election, as well as the Democratic majority in the state Legislature.  Hey… how’s that working out for you?

Not that the Republican alternative would have treated teachers any better, but like every other labor group this session, the WEA has pretty much gotten the short end of the stick on nearly every substantive legislative issue.  Writing in response to the education reform bill that just passed the House, WEA spokesman Rich Wood writes:

Teachers, the professional educators who work with students, are focused on the impact the Legislature’s huge budget cuts will have on our state’s students and the education they receive. HB 2261 may allow adults outside the classroom to think they’re doing something good for kids, but they’re ignoring the immediate and real problem. There’s no money.

$1.5 billion in K-12 education cuts are going to have a devastating impact on our students and classrooms. Trying to change teacher certification and evaluation or implementing a new school accountability system totally misses the mark. It suggests that TEACHERS are the problem, rather than the huge budget cuts. That’s an insult.

We’re losing thousands of teaching positions and students will be in overcrowded classrooms this fall. Meanwhile, the Legislature is poised to spend $3 million on work groups to study teacher certification? And teachers are supposed to accept promises that someday down the road the state might actually fulfill its constitutional obligation to fully fund education? We’ve heard enough promises.

That’s why teachers and other education staffers oppose these bills. Today, the Legislature introduced bills that wipe out the voter-approved initiatives for smaller class sizes and school employee compensation. If we care what the voters think, then the Legislature should be finding ways to protect those investments instead of spending money on work groups.

Wood closes by urging the Senate to reject the bill.  Yeah… good luck with that.

Personally, I’m rather agnostic about the education reform bill.  It does some good things and some bad things and more than a few pointless things, but as long as it remains unfunded, it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.  The WEA is absolutely right that the immediate issue facing K-12 education is the dramatic cut in funding under the proposed budget… but banging their heads against this reform bill isn’t gonna do anything to open up the taps.

Instead, the WEA could be a helluva lot more effective getting behind efforts to put a substantive high-earners income tax on the ballot, all or part of which could be dedicated to funding K-12 education.  The internal polling on such a measure looks surprisingly good—at least as good as the third of a cent sales tax increase Rep. Pettigrew introduced yesterday—yet would generate more money, and wouldn’t require a sunset provision.  From what I hear, SEIU is willing to play ball, and the votes are likely there in the Senate.  If WEA and the public employee unions would just get behind the effort, they might actually be able to push the House along with them.

Seriously.  Without a substantial revenue increase, K-12 is getting less than squat this session.  But with WEA’s promise to aggressively back a ballot measure, a high-earners income tax is not out of the question.

Press releases are nice and all that, but it’s time to let legislators know that you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is, and commit to backing a high-earners income tax to fund K-12 education.

At yesterday’s pathetic Teabagging event at Westlake Center, anti-tax entrepreneur Tim Eyman told the small crowd of angry, confused white people:

“We can’t trust the politicians to decide how big the tax burden should be. People should decide because we are the ones paying the bill.”

And really, that’s all we’re talking about, isn’t it?  I’m not asking legislators to impose an income tax, I’m merely asking them to put the option on the ballot so that voters can decide for themselves.  Give voters a choice between accepting devastating cuts in crucial social services, paying for them with a sales tax increase, or paying for them with a high-earners income tax.

Just give voters a choice.  How could Tim, or anybody else, argue with that?

Seattle PostGlobe debuted yesterday, the first of two planned efforts by former Seattle P-I reporters and editors to help fill the gap left by the  daily’s print death, and the layoff of the bulk of its newsroom staff.  It will be interesting to watch this experiment progress.  I wish them the best of luck.

In the autumn of 2004, about six months after the death of my horse’s ass initiative, and about six months before I would start blogging, my fellow activist Steve Zemke somehow managed to arrange a meeting for us with House Speaker Frank Chopp and then House Finance Committee chair, now State Treasurer, Jim McIntire.  Our purpose was to urge them to pursue some sort of progressive property tax reform in an effort to preempt Tim Eyman’s next initiative, but the conversation drifted broadly toward our structural revenue deficit, and thus inevitably, to an income tax.

Both Frank and Jim supported an income tax—in theory—but neither seemed too keen on raising the issue anytime soon.  In fact, I clearly remember Jim warning me that any attempt to push an income tax prematurely could set our efforts back by a decade or more.

But Jim did put forth one scenario in which he could envision an income tax passing voters, a thesis I’ve since heard from other Olympia insiders, and which I’ve dubbed the “Phoenix Model.”  Under this scenario, a brutal economic downturn combined with a decades-long erosion of our sales tax base could create a budget crisis so severe that legislators and voters would have no choice but to resort to an income tax, or… dramatically reduce the role and scope of Washington state government.  Out of this budgetary Armageddon a new tax structure would be born, so the theory went, like the mythical phoenix rising from its own ashes.

So… um… aren’t we in that scenario now?

How much worse does the budget crisis have to get before voters and their elected officials accept that we cannot build a 21st century economy on the back of an early 20th century tax system?  How many more hundreds of thousands of Washington citizens must be thrown off the health care rolls or denied a college education?  How many businesses must flee our state or avoid starting up here due to the lack of an adequate transportation system or educated workforce or any number of other vital investments in public and human infrastructure?

How many billions of dollars must our budget be in a hole, and how many consecutive budgets must this hole be plugged through cruel cuts and regressive stopgap measures before the emergence of political leaders who are more concerned with long term solutions than with short term political gains?

In the Senate, I have been heartened by the leadership provided on this issue by Majority Leader Lisa Brown, and by the public support displayed by Senators Kohl-Wells, Regala, McDermott, Murray, Kline, and Fraser.  Folks in the know suggest that should a high-earners income tax come to a vote in the Senate, Brown could likely corral enough support to put it on the fall ballot.

But from the House leadership, all we hear are crickets.

If House Finance Committee chair Ross Hunter (D-48) were to take the lead on a high-earners income tax he could rally support behind it and perhaps even push it to the floor for a vote.  Yes, I know he’s focused on passing the education reforms on which he’s passionately dedicated himself for years, but few of these reforms are possible without the funding to back them up.  And yes, I understand that he plans to run for King County Executive, but taking the lead on a high-earners income tax could be exactly what he needs to grab the edge with Seattle voters over Seattle liberals Larry Phillips and Dow Constantine.

But Hunter isn’t even technically a member of the House Democratic Leadership.  So where’s Rep. Larry Springer (D-45) who represents an Eastside district where education funding routinely tops the list of voter concerns, or Rep. Zack Hudgins (D-11) a guy at least as comfortable palling around with DFH’s like me as he is with Olympia power brokers?  Where’s my own representative, Majority Whip Sharon Tomiko Santos (D-37), a long time member of the Tax Fairness Coalition who represents citizens about as adversely effected by our regressive tax structure as any in the state, and who would suffer mightily under the proposed cuts?

For that matter, where the hell is our entire Seattle House delegation?

Yes, I know, I know, I know that Frank is as steeped in the conventional Olympia wisdom as the majority of the observers in the establishment press, and I know that he fears for his majority.  And I know that Frank doesn’t really believe a high-earners income tax could pass voters, regardless of its surprisingly good showing in recent polls.  But he can be nudged.  He can be pushed.  He could even be shoved.

Frank’s not a monolith.  He is open to persuasion, and he does change his mind.  But he’s clearly not going to take the lead on this issue on his own.

That’s why for those of you in the House who believe that an income tax is the only solution to our long term structural deficit, and who understand that after the federal stimulus monies disappear and a temporary sales tax increase expires, we’ll be right back where we started, even with an economic recovery—and I’m confident that covers the majority of the Democratic caucus—the only responsible thing to do is to stand up and take the lead on this issue now, while we actually have an opportunity to pass it.

Don’t wait for Frank!  He’s way behind the electorate on this issue, and while I’m confident he’ll do the right thing and do it well once he’s brought up to speed, he’ll never get there unless some influential members of his caucus clear the way.

If a temporary sales tax increase was a sure thing at the polls, I’d understand your reluctance, considering the dire consequences should a revenue measure fail.  But it isn’t.  And in many ways, a high-earners income tax has considerably more political upside than any sales tax proposal.

So take a look at the recent the polling, and dive into the details.  Talk to your constituents and listen to their concerns about further regressivity.  And then somebody, anybody, please stand up and take the lead.

I’ll be on KUOW’s The Conversation this afternoon, between 12:15 and 12:30, talking about proposals for a temporary sales tax increase.  Listen live or download the podcast.

And for those of you listeners coming to HA looking for the statistics I’ve cited, here are some useful links.

Sales Tax vs Income Tax: A Short Primer in Fairness and Adequacy

Out of control spending?

Per capita revenues at 15-year low

Structural deficit

UPDATE:
If KUOW listeners are typical (and I’m not suggesting that they are,) they are a lot better informed, and a lot more supportive of an income tax than many of our politicians imagine.

In the most positive assessment since Gallup started polling the question in 1956, 48% of Americans now say the amount of federal income tax they pay is “about right,” while 46% say it is “too high,” marking a dramatic shift from the historic norm.

On the macro level, this shift in opinion should serve as a warning to Republicans who have long relied on cutting taxes as the central theme of their political campaigns.  But on the local level, I hope it prompts Democrats in Olympia, and their various constituent groups, to reevaluate the conventional group-think that insists an income tax is a non-starter for Washington voters.

Yeah, I know, I know… a broad personal income tax got trounced at the polls the last time it was on the ballot back in 1973, and an off-off election year is typically the worst time to put a progressive measure before voters who will surely skew to the right.  But this isn’t 1973, and in the midst of the Great Recession and an extended Obama honeymoon, we may be passing up a once in a generation opportunity to enact real reform.

Voters are in a mood.  They’re anxious about the economy and angry at the fat cats on Wall Street who led us into this crisis, which may help explain why a high-earners income tax is polling just about even with a third of cent increase in the sales tax. Obama campaigned on raising taxes on households earning over $250,000 a year, and he won by a wide margin here in WA state, so why wouldn’t WA voters support the same locally?  Well, given the right package, the right reasons and an effective communications campaign, they might.  I’m not saying a high-earners income tax measure is a sure thing, but for the first time in a long time, neither is its failure.

So the next time someone points to 1973 as evidence of political futility, I say point to this Gallup chart illustrating the dramatic shift in national attitudes over the past 36 years, and ask the question:  are Washington voters really all that different from the rest of the nation? Personally, I don’t think so.

Guns make you safer:

A Fort Lewis soldier is dead after being accidentally shot in the head and killed by his wife in Olympia, the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office says.

Lt. Chris Mealy of the sheriff’s office told KOMO-TV the soldier was teaching his wife how to handle a handgun when he was shot early Sunday. Mealy told The Olympian that the semi-automatic handgun was the soldier’s personal property.

I’m just sayin’.

As first reported on Seattle Transit Blog, the state House passed a $4.9 billion two-year transportation budget on Friday that restored funding for moving I-90’s HOV lanes (work necessary to keep the voter-approved East Link light rail project on schedule) and which removed language that would have barred the state Department of Transportation from negotiating air rights with Sound Transit for access to I-90.

This blog has long made the case that Rep. Clibborn has long been opposed to Link crossing I-90, so we hope that this is the first sign of a House that is friendlier toward transit — perhaps due to advocacy pressure. One legislator described our outreach campaign as “a deluge of emails set off by bloggers,” but we think it’s important that transit advocates let the state know how important voter-approved light rail projects are to the region.

It is difficult to accurately gauge the impact of citizen advocacy, but the folks at STB deserve a ton of credit for taking the lead on covering this issue, and pushing awareness amongst both rail supporters and legislators alike.  If I were them, I’d quietly put another notch in my belt.

But after talking to a number of reliable sources both in and outside Olympia, I’m not so sure it was Rep. Clibborn’s opposition to Link crossing I-90 that was the real motivation behind the anti-Link nature of the original bill.  Clibborn and others, I’m told, weren’t really hoping to scuttle East Link, which is pretty much accepted in Olympia as a done deal.  No, this was more of a shakedown… part of a calculated effort to extort a billion dollars or more from Sound Transit for access rights to I-90… money House Speaker Frank Chopp hopes to target to his preferred, but monstrously expensive, “Option K” Montlake tunnel alternative for the Western approach to the new 520 floating bridge.

At least a billion dollars, possibly two, that’s what Chopp has privately told lawmakers and lobbyists he wants for access to I-90 (a bridge, by the way, built 90% with federal dollars), and that’s why, I’m told, he had his lieutenants throw roadblocks into DOT’s negotiations with Sound Transit.  That’s potentially enough money to fund all of the controversial Option K tunnel.

Now, as House Speaker, I kinda expect Chopp to play games like this.  That’s politics.  It’s part of his job description.

But Chopp also represents the voters of Seattle’s 43rd Legislative District… voters who overwhelmingly voted last November to tax themselves to build light rail across Lake Washington, not a highway tunnel under Montlake.  We tried to pass a roads and transit measure back in 2007—I aggressively supported it—and it failed.  The successful 2008 ballot measure, on the other hand, was explicitly transit only.

The Speaker’s efforts to steal money from East Link to help pay for Option K, may be a clever political maneuver, but it clearly ignores the will of the voters, and threatens the ability of Sound Transit to complete a project that, due to the Great Recession, is already seeing lower than projected tax revenues, and for which ST had never factored in the cost of tunneling under Montlake.

And it’s not at all that clear that this effort is dead, even with passage of a relatively ST-friendly transportation bill.

For all the incessant attacks from Republicans questioning his fitness to be Commander in Chief, President Obama appears to have engaged rather forcefully in the recent standoff with Somali pirates:

U.S. Navy Seals had a standing order from President Barack Obama to take out the pirates who held an American captain in a standoff on the high seas, according to Pentagon officials and White House aides.

Over the course of the five-day standoff, Obama, who said little publicly about the hostage situation, received more than a dozen briefings and gave the Department of Defense policy guidance and the authority to use force if the situation compelled it.

Mission accomplished.

A couple weeks ago, when I first set out on my recent series of obsessively wonky posts on Washington’s budget crisis and the structural revenue deficit at its heart, I pretty much knew what to expect.  Readership would trail off, incoming links would virtually disappear, and my comment threads would fill with automatic gainsaying, tired, anti-tax rhetoric, and pointless personal attacks on my manhood, my alleged socialism, and of course, my ethnicity.

i told u in your last post goldstein, get out of here and go to that garbage dump israel, and take that homo barney frank with u

No, my trolls rarely fail to disappoint.  And neither have the local media, whose coverage of this crisis, as expected, has largely focused on the spending side of the equation and the political machinations behind it, while providing little if any discussion of its causes, outside of the frame of the current economic cycle.

It is easy to point to a four-year period and show that spending has increased from X to Y.  It is much harder to cogently place this increase within the proper historical, economic and statistical context.  And so, for the most part, our media has failed to even try, and understandably so, for properly done, the subject matter is inherently godawful dry and boring.  Why should a daily newspaper devote precious column inches to explaining a premise that is at its best tedious, and at its worse, a maddeningly counter-intuitive and downright unpopular challenge to conventional wisdom?

Thus I was pleasantly surprised to read Seattle Times economic columnist Jon Talton this morning proclaim that now is the “Time for state to discuss taxes despite difficulties.”

It’s quixotic — or deranged. Such are most of the reactions, depending on political persuasion, to state Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown’s idea of an income tax on high-wage earners to help fund education.

Huh.  Sounds like Talton is calling out his own editorial board.  But…

Even so, Brown’s proposal ought to open an important conversation about taxes and the state’s future competitiveness. It’s one that’s difficult to have without arousing partisan passions, cooked statistics and charges of socialism or a sales-tax-driven war on the poor. It’s one we should have nevertheless.

There… was that so hard?

As Talton points out, Washington’s individual and corporate tax “burden” remains relatively low while our per capita income remains high, and our heavy reliance on the sales tax leaves us with the most regressive tax structure in the nation.  Talton also peeks beneath the robes of the rarely challenged orthodoxy that inexorably links tax rates to private sector competitiveness.

Some of the states with the highest tax rates and tax burdens (taxes paid divided by income) are also the richest and most economically powerful.

These include New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and California. Some states with very low taxes also suffer from limited economies and a relative lack of well-paid jobs. This doesn’t mean that high taxes can’t ultimately hurt competitiveness, only that reflexive tax cutting is no panacea, either. Rather, tax policy seems to be one element in a state’s overall competitive DNA.

Our problem, as Talton explains, is that despite such facts, talk of higher taxes is generally political suicide.

Anti-tax activists have been effective in portraying government as always bloated and inefficient. This sidesteps answering what roles government must do well and which cost money to enhance competitiveness in a complex, global economy.

That’s all I’ve been asking for:  a public conversation on the proper size and scope of government, and how best to adequately, sustainably and fairly pay for those services and infrastructure investments we collectively want and need.  With rare exceptions like Talton’s column, we aren’t getting that conversation in our local media, and apart from Brown and a handful of other legislators, we aren’t getting that conversation from our elected officials either.

I’m not saying it’s an easy conversation, or one that won’t come with political costs.  But in the long run, it’s a conversation we can’t afford to avoid.

Apparently, I have kidney stones, a malady I’ve heard others describe as more painful than childbirth.  I’m not sure why I’d be prone to the disease, considering I sit at home most days drinking copious quantities of green tea, water and seltzer, so I’m just going to blame our frustrating lawmakers in Olympia, and the fistfuls of Tums they’ve prompted me to swallow over the past couple months.

The symptoms started about a week ago, but last night was the first time the pain got bad enough to keep me awake.  Still, it’s not so bad at the moment, and I hope to get through this without cracking open my prescription of Vicodin.  We’ll see.

I mention my ailment, not to elicit your pity, but to point out how stupid our health care system is.  According to the NIH, each year kidney stones prompt 3 million visits to health care providers, and half a million people to visit emergency rooms.  So it’s a pretty common ailment.  And without robust insurance, it’s a pretty common way to find oneself in a financial hole.

If I pass my stones on my own it’s going to cost me only a few hundred dollars in doctors office visits and lab work, but should I require further diagnosis and treatment—CT scans, ureteroscopy, surgery, a hospital stay and follow-up—it’ll cost me thousands of dollars before my deductible is exhausted and my co-insurance stoploss kicks in.  And that’s with an insurance plan on which I already pay a couple hundred dollars a month.

I’m sure I’ll manage to get by.

But a lot of families wouldn’t.  For many folks, even in good times, five to six thousand dollars in medical expenses could mean the difference between keeping or losing the house, or perhaps, completing a college degree.  And for the uninsured, the costs from an ailment as common as a tiny chunk of calcium stuck in your kidney could easily exceed $40,000.

There are those on the right who resent what social safety net we have, and who rail against being asked to pay for the consequences of the poor choices of others.  But affordable insurance simply isn’t available to tens of millions of American families, and God knows, nobody chooses to have a kidney stone.  So in the end, what good is the best health care available anywhere in the world, when there’s no functional system for providing it?

The Washington State Budget & Policy has revised their chart tracking Washington state government spending and revenue as a percentage of personal income to include the projected 2009-2011 budget… and it’s pretty damn dramatic.

It is important to note that while state spending has remained fairly flat for the past decade, apart from a spike during the real estate bubble revenue has been steadily eroding since before the current economic crisis.  As for the current downturn, the decrease in revenue is twice as steep as previous declines, and the proposed budget cuts are substantially deeper as a percentage of the economy than any other budget over the period of time charted.

Those who insist our current budget crisis is the result of out of control spending will just have to continue to ignore the facts.

The Seattle Times editorial board is at it again:

In unemployment pay, Washington is not a cheap state, nor is either side — labor and business — proposing to make it one. It has the fifth-highest unemployment benefit among the states and the sixth-highest level of taxes.

Really?  WA has the sixth-highest level of taxes?  According to whom, and by what measure?

According to the conservative Tax Foundation, Washington’s state and local tax burden ranked 35th as a percentage of personal income in 2008, dead even with Mississippi, while WA’s own Department of Revenue had us ranked 28th in 2006.  Both the Tax Foundation and the state DOR pull their numbers from the US Census Bureau.  Furthermore, the Tax Foundation ranks WA as having the 12th best “business tax climate” in the nation.

So where does the Times get its number that ranks WA with the sixth-highest level of taxes?  They don’t tell you, but I’m pretty sure the only math that could get us anywhere near that high would be to calculate total state, local and federal taxes per capita, a bullshit number for comparative purposes that even then they’d still have to fudge.

On average, Washington is not a high tax state.  It’s simply not.  And if the Times is going to insist on making that assertion, even in passing, they have an ethical obligation to back it up with real numbers.