HorsesAss.Org

One of my biggest complaints with Washington legislators, even those who have long recognized the need for substantial tax restructuring, is their general lack of creativity in approaching the issue, both on the political level of how one might pass an income tax, and on the practical level of what form an income tax might take.

That’s one of the reasons I so quickly latched on to the notion of a high-earners income tax. It’s an imperfect idea that displaces only a small segment of our highly regressive tax structure, but it’s a savvy proposal, politically and rhetorically well suited to our times: an unprecedented budget crisis induced by an economic downturn for which much of the blame can reasonably be laid at the feet of some of our nation’s wealthiest and most powerful corporations and individuals.

Rightly or wrongly, there isn’t much sympathy for the rich these days, a sentiment which the high-earner’s income tax proposal effectively exploits. I’m not being cynical here, simply politically adroit; Washington’s tax structure is bizarrely and cruelly regressive, and if our current crisis presents an opportunity to address this inequity even just a little, progressives would be stupid not to take advantage of it.

All that said, I would of course prefer a somewhat broader income tax that did more to address the inherent regressivity of our current system, while providing a more adequate and reliable revenue stream for the future (i.e., one which grows state revenues largely in pace with growth in the state economy). And in that spirit I’d like to take a moment to briefly introduce an immodest proposal of my own, something I call the Education Income Tax.

The proposal is simple. An income tax would be levied, dedicated solely to funding K-12 education (you know, our state’s “paramount duty”), and that income tax would be the only source of state funding for K-12 education.

The Education Income Tax essentially takes K-12 spending out of the general fund and into its own budget, with it’s own dedicated revenue stream. It also forces legislators and the governor to balance a popular public service against a generally unpopular tax. And by walling off both K-12 spending and the income tax that supports it from the rest of the budget, it eliminates the possibility of budgetary tricks through the usual fungibility of funds.

From a tax fairness perspective, the Education Income Tax would represent a huge step in the right direction by supplanting about 40 percent of the revenue that currently comprises the general fund. The state portion of the property tax, ostensibly a school levy, could be eliminated entirely, while a substantial cut in sales and other taxes would also be possible. I would expect the Education Income Tax to raise more money for K-12 education than we currently spend, yet the majority of households would still pay less in state taxes than they spend now, as the entire system is somewhat flattened.

But most importantly, by locking an income tax to education funding and vice versa, this proposal could help many voters overcome their inherent suspicion of any income tax proposal. And any income tax proposal will ultimately have to be approved by voters.

Yes, there are downsides to such a proposal. Dedicated taxes violate basic principles of sound taxation, and income tax revenue tends to be more volatile than other taxes, but the responsible use of rainy day funds can provide an effective buffer against the normal economic cycle, and besides, there’s nothing wrong with forcing elected officials to do their jobs… you know, making tough decisions. If the Legislature is faced with the choice of slashing K-12 education, or raising income tax rates during an economic downturn, so be it.

Ideally, proposals like this wouldn’t be necessary, and Washington would have followed the recommendations of the Gates Commission report years ago. But politically, we have to find some way to make an income tax more palatable to a majority of voters. Perhaps the Education Income Tax isn’t the way to go. Perhaps a high-earners income tax isn’t either. But if we want to maintain the same level of public investment and quality of life Washingtonians have grown accustomed to — and which have contributed greatly to our state’s prosperity over recent decades — then at some point an income tax becomes necessary.

And it may take some very creative thinking to get us past that point.

Join us tonight for an evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning about 8:00 pm. Or stop by earlier for dinner.

Tonight we’ll raise a toast to everyone’s good health (while we can afford it), and have a moment of silence for the more than 20,000 people a year who die for want of affordable health care while members of the Republican and Lieberman for Connecticut parties obstruct health insurance reforms.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 340 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

As has been widely reported at Publicola, the P-I and elsewhere, the putatively nonpartisan King County Council deadlocked last night along partisan lines as they struggled to name a replacement to fill Dow Constantine’s vacated seat through the end of 2010.

Which raises a question. Were the Municipal League, the Seattle Times and other so-called civic “leaders” naive, stupid or just plain cynical in endorsing last year’s charter amendment that made all county offices nonpartisan? I mean, honestly… what the fuck did they think would happen in situations such as this?

It also raises the question of exactly what Republicans on the council are trying to achieve by blocking the appointment of State Sen. Joe McDermott, the obvious favorite of District 9 Democratic PCO’s. Are they hoping that an interim appointment would attract multiple legislators to the race (Rep. Zack Hudgins, for instance), thus creating additional headaches for Dems as they attempt not to lose too many seats next November?  Surely they don’t believe a Republican has a shot at the seat?

Either way they may end up regretting their gambit and the hard feelings it is creating. When Rob McKenna vacated his seat after winning the AG’s race, Reagan Dunn was appointed unanimously. As prominent Republican Toby Nixon points out in the P-I’s comment thread, next time around, Democrats might not be so gracious:

The Republicans need to keep in mind that the time may come when Kathy Lambert or Reagan Dunn (just a couple of examples) are elected to higher office and the council will be choosing their successor — and the Democrats on the council will remember well what is happening right now.

So how’s that charter amendment working out for you, Toby?

From The Columbian:

“I’ve never been so fired up for a campaign in my life,” said Pridemore, D-Vancouver, who is serving his second term in the state Senate. “It’s 320 days to Election Day, and the clock has started.”

Pridemore said he has assembled a strong campaign team and will begin raising money immediately, even as he prepares for a grueling 60-day legislative session in January.

So there you have it.

She’s in. From The Columbian.

I hadn’t realized it until I saw a link in the comment threads, but the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy recently updated its comprehensive survey, “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States,” and Washington once again tops the list of the Ten Most Regressive State Tax Systems… and by far.

Hooray for us!

Let’s put this in perspective. If we were to totally eliminate our state and local sales tax, property tax, B&O tax and various excise taxes and fees (gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, etc.), and replace the revenue with a single graduated income tax that levied a 2.9% rate on our wealthiest households (those with an average income of $1.8 million), and a 17.3% rate on our poorest (those earning an average of $11,000), with those in the middle three quintiles paying between 9.5% and 12.7%, it would have the same exact impact on Washington families as our current tax system does now.

Can anybody reasonably argue that such a system would be fair? I don’t think so.

But that’s exactly what we have now.

Jon was too shy to name names, but the “well-known Republican personality” rumored to be weighing a run to replace Rep. Brian Baird in WA-03 is none other than crazy-conservative talk host Lars Larson.

That would certainly make the race, um, interesting.

UPDATE:
Did Larson just deny the rumor in the comment thread?

2. lars spews:

Hilarious. and flattering. and not the least bit valid. but kinda fun …

Anybody can spoof an email address and URL in a comment, so we can’t know that’s really Larson, but the IP resolves to Rose City Digital, the same outfit that does the KXL website. Hmm.

Who the hell goes to party meetings in December?

For the first time in a long, long time, I did Monday night, here in Vancouver.

Ken at NPI Advocate notes that activist Maria Rodriguez-Salazar has announced she is running for what will be an open seat in WA-03.

Rodriguez-Salazar came to the Clark County Democrats’ meeting Monday night and spoke briefly to the group. At one point she referred to herself as a “Blue Dog.”

And check out this bit from the KATU story linked above:

Being the mother of three children gives Rogriguez-Salazar the drive to choose “focus on the family” as her political platform.

Heh, I think that’s already copyrighted. Or maybe not, but it’s a hell of a catchy slogan. I don’t know quite what to make of a Blue Dogging, focusing on the family candidate.

Denny Heck, the former legislator and TVW founder, sent a representative in the person of attorney Jim Luce, who read a prepared statement. Heck is also pondering a run.

Rep. Deb Wallace, D-Vancouver (17th LD,) also spoke and compared the 17th District to the 3rd Congressional district as a whole, emphasizing the need to grow jobs. Wallace was very gracious about the fact that there are going to be lots of candidates.

An official from the 49th District Democrats confirmed that Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver (49th LD,) is definitely running.

The open seat at the Congressional level is opening up races further down-ticket, and there were several possible legislative candidates present. One to keep an eye on is Monica Stonier in the 17th LD, who has announced for Wallace’s seat. A middle school teacher, Stonier was an Obama delegate to the national convention last year. She also has a pretty decent speaking style and likely pretty extensive community connections, from both the education and the political worlds.

There are also strong rumors of a well-known Republican personality getting into the race as early as today.

Earlier today I argued that Democrats need to take advantage of our current short-term revenue crisis to fix our long-term revenue deficit, by taking the budget crisis as an opportunity to win voter approval of a high-earners income tax. But how do we do this at the same time we meet the very real need to raise additional revenues now?

It’s not all that complicated.

Gov. Gregoire supports a revenue package, and the Legislature will likely pass one, no doubt comprised of hikes in alcohol and tobacco taxes, elimination of some tax breaks, and perhaps extension of the sales tax to professional services and/or a small hike in the sales tax rate itself. None of this will be popular, and most of it will be regressive, and while an emergency clause would eliminate the possibility of the tax hikes being delayed by a referendum, we should expect an attempt to repeal the package by initiative. So my suggestion to legislators is, why not pass the package, and then just put a repeal measure on the ballot yourselves?

Sound crazy? Not really. Take this scenario for example.

Let’s say you pass a package that raises an additional $1 billion a year in new revenue, while at the same time putting on the ballot a referendum that would repeal the hikes and replace them with a tax on household income in excess of $300,000 a year. Voters are given a choice: they can keep the current taxes that hit just about everybody by voting No on the measure, or they can vote Yes and shift these taxes to a handful of our state’s wealthiest households… those same households that profit most from Washington’s most regressive tax structure in the nation.

But one could take this concept even further. Instead of a dollar for dollar offset, the high-earners income tax could be set at a rate that raises, say, $1.5 billion a year, with the extra $500 million coming back to voters in the form of a half cent reduction in the state sales tax below our current 6% rate, or maybe a similar sized reduction in the state property tax.

Vote Yes, and not only do you get rid of the new tax hikes, the vast majority of voters would actually lower their own taxes. That’s how Tim Eyman wins initiatives (when he wins them), by promising to put money back into voters’ pockets. And unlike an Eyman initiative, there’s no corresponding cut in popular state services.

This isn’t just smart policy, it’s smart politics, as it leverages the short-term crisis to help address a long-term problem, while providing an outlet for voters who might otherwise vote for a straight repeal initiative. In fact, the Legislature’s referred referendum could be written in such a way as to protect the short-term revenue against repeal by initiative, essentially by re-enacting the hikes in the not so unlikely circumstance that both ballot measures passed.

Step 1: enact the revenue package legislatively. Step 2: refer a referendum to the ballot that enacts the same revenue package, but replaces it with a high-earners income tax once implemented. (In the eventuality that an income tax is passed, but ruled unconstitutional, the existing revenue package would remain in effect.)

Simple really, and not all that confusing.

And a helluva lot more responsible than passing up the best opportunity we’ve had in decades to seriously debate an income tax.

State Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver(49th LD,) will announce his candidacy for Congress in WA-03 within the next 24 hours, sources close to Pridemore tell me.

The other announced Democrat is state Rep. Deb Wallace, D-Vancouver (17th LD,) who entered the race last week, after the decision by incumbent U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., not to seek another term.

Announced Republicans include former Bush administration official David Castillo, Washougal city council member Jon Russell, and “yelling town hall man” David Hedrick. Also reportedly interested is state Rep. Jaime Herrera, R-Ridgefield (18th LD.)

The third district stretches from its population center in Clark County at its south end (just across the river from Portland, Or.,) to parts of Thurston County, home of the state capital Olympia. Longview-Kelso in Cowlitz County and Centralia-Chehalis in Lewis County are less populated but still significant population areas.

And for the last time, the district is not as conservative as people from Seattle and the Clark County Republican Party seem to think. It’s a flat-out swing district, and Clark County’s media landscape is dominated by Portland television stations, who generally come across the river only for things that are bleeding or snowing.

There’s a lot riding on who puts together the best campaigns and articulates the rising discontent regular people have towards our government and the elite institutions that very nearly destroyed everything.

So there’s no reason not to state the obvious: I will be an early and enthusiastic supporter of Pridemore. He’s a smart, tough, seasoned politician who still knows who he is and why he is in public service. And I genuinely mean no disrespect for Wallace with that statement; she is a fine Democrat in her own right and will deservedly have many supporters. But Craig’s my guy, just so I’m clear about that.

I suppose this will set off a predictable flurry of talk about who can win, and that discussion has happened over the last few days in phone calls and emails all over the district anyhow. Personally I believe either of them could win a general election, so I’m not going to cast any stones in that regard.

Pridemore has won both county wide and in his admittedly more liberal legislative district. Nothing wrong with that, and if Pridemore is willing to put his neck out there and fight for what he believes in, then more power to him. He’s also very, very bright, articulate and good with numbers, so anyone facing him in a general election will need to be on their game. Don’t let anyone from down here play games with you about his chances, he’s the real deal.

Much attention was paid to the Nov. 5th shooting rampage at Fort Hood, and rightly so. It was a terrible tragedy in which 13 were killed and 30 others wounded by a deeply disturbed U.S. Army psychiatrist.

Yet news today that 12 more Army soldiers committed suicide in November, bringing the yearly total to a record high 147 suicides thus far in 2009, will likely pass with little national debate. And that’s just the suicides in the Army. As of last month 334 active members of the U.S. military services had committed suicide in 2009, also a record high.

By comparison, the U.S. military has so far suffered 304 fatalities in Afghanistan this year, and an additional 150 in Iraq.

Politicians in both parties like to talk about supporting the troops. I doubt the families of the service men and women who took their own lives believe we’ve supported them nearly enough.

I agree wholeheartedly with the headline, if not the text of a recent Seattle Times editorial: “Washington state’s finances require long-term solutions.”

Of course, the one long-term solution the Times doesn’t mention is tax restructuring… you know, reforming our tax system so that revenues actually keep pace with growth in the economy, while distributing the burden more efficiently and fairly. That’s to be expected from the Times ed board, which on revenue issues has pretty much become a mouthpiece of the state GOP.

But the editorial does make one argument that’s as applicable to the revenue side of the equation as it is to the spending, and which progressives should heed as we attempt to deal with this unprecedented budget crisis:

Opponents will say that such suggestions don’t produce that much money in this budget period, and they will be right. These are ideas for the long term — and now is a really good time to consider them.

This is, of course, exactly the argument I’ve been hearing from many of my fellow Democrats whenever I advocate for a high-earner’s income tax as part of the solution to the current fiscal crisis. It can’t produce revenue fast enough, I was told last year as legislators battled to put together a two-year budget in the face of record revenue shortfalls. It can’t produce revenue fast enough, I’m being told this year, as legislators prepare to fill an additional $2.6 billion gap. And no doubt the same argument will be used to brush aside the suggestion again in 2011 and 2012, as the state struggles to deal with what are becoming perennial revenue shortfalls.

An income tax is a distraction, I’m told, that only complicates the political machinations necessary to assure that some sort of tax increase be a part of the current budget negotiations.

Yeah, well, the problem with this line of reasoning is that while implementing an income tax can never be a short-term solution, it’s exactly the kind of long-term solution we need to make sure that more short-term solutions won’t be as necessary in the future. And with the budget crisis — and the unpopular cuts it necessitates — fresh in voters minds, now is the best opportunity we’ve had in decades to get some sort of income tax approved by voters.

Wait until we don’t have a short-term budget crisis, and there won’t be the popular will to swallow and accept an otherwise unpopular long-term reform.

The Times editors and their fellow Republicans are thinking long-term; they want to use this crisis to permanently shrink the size of state and local government and cripple its ability to provide the services people want. They may not be willing to come out and say it, but they are advocating for a paradigm shift, in which government plays a much smaller role in our local economy, and a much smaller role in funding health, welfare, education and public infrastructure.

We should be thinking long-term too.

Cherisse Luxa has passed away. I didn’t know Cherisse, but others did. Condolences to her family.

Andrew at NPI:

This morning, Washington’s netroots community lost one of its most wonderful and spirited activists when Cherisse Luxa, the founder of Burien Drinking Liberally, succumbed to stomach cancer. Cherisse was sixty two. She resided in the 34th LD, known for its strong and vibrant Democratic Party organization.

Cafecito at Daily Kos:

If you have ever attended Drinking Liberally, you almost certainly know of Cherisse’s incredible energy and her unstoppable drive to make our community a better place. From her decades as a King County Sheriff’s Deputy to her impressive track record as an activist an advocate, Cherisse made a huge difference, both for Burien and for the broader community.

Cherisse, like many of us, got religion with Howard Dean’s run.

Cherisse touched thousands of lives and was a role model for many of us. We will sorely miss her.

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky. It was Kansas City, MO.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Beck – Not So Mellow Gold
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis