Goldy

In reporting that Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles will hold a hearing on the high-earners income tax tomorrow in the Ways and Means Committee, the TNT’s Joe Turner adds…

I’m not sure what the purpose of holding a hearing will be…

Well Joe, um… maybe the purpose is to debate the merits of a high-earners income tax?

This, for me, is what has been most infuriating this session… the absolute refusal of most in the media and political establishment to even consider discussing the issue itself.  Here we are in the midst of our state’s worst economic and budgetary crisis since the Great Depression, and Kohl-Welles is being mocked for daring to discuss the highly regressive and inadequate tax structure that is at the heart of Washington’s long term budgetary problems.

Make the argument that it is a sound policy to tax our state’s poorest families at six times the rate we tax our wealthiest.  Explain why it is in the best interest of our citizens and our business community to stand by and watch our state government’s spending power gradually and steadily erode as we continue to rely on an ever shrinking portion of our economy to provide the bulk of state revenues.  Offer even a little bit of evidence to suggest that if we only ride out this recession, state revenues will ever return to pre-crisis levels, adjusted for population and inflation.

Go ahead… try to make an actual argument as to why the income tax is unfair, unworkable, and unrealistic, for chrisakes.  But no… you’d just rather mockingly dismiss it out of hand as an unserious proposal because voters rejected one iteration of it some thirty-five years ago.

My God.. there are two sides to the budget equation—expenditures and revenues—so why is it that the only responsible, reasonable and serious thing to do, is to debate the former while ignoring the latter?  Shame on all of you.

Freddie Mac CFO David Kellerman was found dead this morning, the apparent victim of suicide by hanging.

So… how long before the righties start producing videos accusing Obama of complicity in Kellerman’s murder? Or is Kellerman just another victim of D.C.’s most notorious serial killers, the Clintons?

“Why does Frank Chopp hate Seattle?” That’s the question Josh asks at Publicola after State Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36) showed him an amendment to the Viaduct Bill that pins potential cost overruns on the backs of Seattle taxpayers.

The amendment, sponsored by House transportation committee chair Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41, Bellevue, Factoria, Newcastle), says any cost overruns on the Viaduct tunnel project have to be paid by Seattle-area businesses—a standard for a state-funded project that Carlyle argued had never been applied to locals before. (Without any local accountability measures, for example, Rep. Carlyle pointed out, the state has spent $1.56 billion on 405.)

[…] Carlyle wasn’t simply standing up for his turf, though. He believed the amendment, if passed, would set a “dangerous precedent” that locals across the state could now be held accountable for cost overruns “on any bridge, ferry, roads, or building project.”

The “Big Bore” is the brain child of the oh so credible Discovery Institute, which, based on its profound respect for the sciences, promises that new and barely tested deep bore technology can dig the tunnel cheaper and faster than ever before possible.

Um… maybe.  But maybe not.  The deep bore tunnel is without a doubt the least studied Viaduct alternative from an engineering and a geological perspective, and yet it was quickly embraced by the powers that be after local voters and politicians appeared to be reaching a consensus on the much less sexy surface/transit option.

Surface/transit was also the least expensive option, for both the state and the city, and no doubt the easiest to accurately estimate costs, as we have a helluva lot more experience laying down asphalt than we do sending giant boring machines through downtown Seattle’s relatively unexplored substrata.  Discovery’s assurance’s aside, the Big Bore is by far the riskiest option in terms of potential cost overruns.  I’m loathe to bring up Boston’s infamous Big Dig, as I don’t subscribe to the notion that Americans have somehow lost the ability to engineer tunnels, but… well… shit happens.

And if shit happens, it should be the responsibility of the state to clean it up.  After all, it’s the Governor and the Legislature who put up the most resistance to the surface/transit option, and who eagerly sought out the Big Bore as a magically delicious alternative.  So why the hell should local taxpayers, who were already prepared to settle on a less expensive, less risky (and yes, less elegant) solution, pick up the tab should Discovery’s faith-based transportation plans turn out to be not all that intelligently designed?

We shouldn’t, and now is the time for Mayor Nickels and other local political leaders to send a clear message to Olympia that, if they change the terms of the deal on us, forcing us to pick up the costs of their potential blunders, then the deal is off.  Seattle has already agreed to pony up $1 billion toward the cost of replacing this state highway, but if this amendment sticks, placing all the risk on our backs, I say we put away our checkbook and tell our legislators to just go screw themselves.

I’m still waiting for the Seattle Times editorial board to take me up on my 5,001 protester challenge.  I promise to bring 5,001 protesters to Olympia to rally on behalf of an income tax, if they promise to credulously editorialize in favor of our populist movement should we hit the turnout target.

Yeah, sure, I know that a mere 5,001 citizens out of a state population of over 6.5 million may not seem like much of a “movement,” but that’s still one more than the low bar set by the Times in regards to last week’s teabagger rally:

… when organizers get 5,000 people to come to Olympia on a workday, it is evidence of a strong feeling.

Funny thing is, the Times hasn’t always sold populism so cheap.  When 40,000 people peacefully marched in Seattle to protest WTO, only to be met with tear gas and billy clubs (and yes, the overwhelming majority of marchers were peaceful), the Times didn’t embrace the populism of the moment.  No, they demonized and ridiculed labor leaders and environmentalists for their “narrow point of view,” calling their message “shameless,” “dishonest,” “distorted, “canned,” and “99-percent fact free.”

When in years past, tens of thousands of people have turned out to protest education cuts or immigration policy or the Iraq war, where was the Times editorial arguing that this should be enough to stop lawmakers in their tracks?  Likewise, where is the populist embrace from the Times when labor manages to turn out teabagger-plus-sized crowds at the state Capitol?

Agreeing with the teabaggers is one thing.  The Times’ editors are entitled to their opinion.  But in light of the much larger rallies the ed board has either willfully ignored or contemptuously mocked, spinning this unimpressive made for TV event into some sort of populist rebellion is disingenuous at best, and delusional at worst.

I don’t generally follow Tacoma City Council races, but I’ll make an exception for Keven Rojecki, who recently announced his candidacy for an open seat.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet and talk with Keven on a number of occasions during my adventures in Olympia, where in his capacity as a legislative liaison for the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters (WSCFF) we have often found ourselves working the same side of important public policy issues.  Keven is also an active fire fighter, an 18-year veteran with the SeaTac Fire Department, and has served the past two years as Vice-Chair of the Washington State Gambling Commission.

I know nothing about Keven’s opponent—perhaps she’s just as qualified, I dunno—but I do know that Keven is exactly the kind of public servant we could use more of in electoral politics, so I wish him the best of luck.  And if you’re down in Olympia Thursday, you can wish him luck in person at a luncheon reception and fundraiser being held at the WSCFF headquarters:

Date:	Thursday, April 23, 2009
Time:	11:00am – 1:30pm
Location:	Washington State Council of Fire Fighters
Street:	1069 Adams Street SE
City/Town:	Olympia, WA

Ah well, it looks like the timid status quoists are in full spin mode.

Covering the on-again/off-again prospects of a tax increase measure, Austin Jenkins reports for both KUOW and Crosscut that as weak as public support is for a sales tax increase, an income tax fares even worse:

The sales tax garnered better than 50 percent support if it included a tax rebate for working families and if the money raised was used to support hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care programs. […]  The income tax proposal polled under 50 percent even if the money was dedicated to education and health care.

Huh?  That’s not what I heard.  And while I’m not sure I’ve seen the polling detail to which Jenkins refers, clearly, neither has he.

Or maybe I have. Here’s how Jenkins describes the poll in question:

I got my hands on a summary of the poll that was given to the Senate Democratic Caucus. It’s not the complete poll, and I don’t have a sample size or margin of error; however I believe 800 likely voters were polled. The poll was taken last week — right when people were filing their taxes and there were anti-tax demonstrations all over the country, including at the State Capitol in Olympia. The health care groups who paid for the poll say it was the “worst possible” week to be asking voters their mood on taxes.

Huh.  I too have seen a poll of 800 likely voters, conducted last week, the worst week possible for asking voters their mood on an income tax… although unlike Jenkins, who reports on a summary passed on to the Senate Dem Caucus, I got to see some of the actual details:

Three tenths of one percent sales tax for working families tax rebate and Health Care Trust Fund For Basic Health Plan
(Total Approve) =  40%
Definitely Approve: 16%
Probably Approve 17%
Lean Approve 8%
Lean Reject 4%
Probably Reject 12%
Definitely Reject 22%
Undecided 21%

3% state income tax on individuals making over $250K
(Total Approve) =  47%
Definitely Approve: 27%
Probably Approve 15%
Lean Approve 5%
Lean Reject 2%
Probably Reject 8%
Definitely Reject 35%
Undecided 8%

Hmm. Perhaps there were two polls of the exact same survey size conducted at exactly the same time on the exact same subject?  And no doubt the pollsters asked these questions in multiple ways, pushing different strengths and weaknesses, so perhaps Jenkins’ data is just as valid as mine?  And yes, it is very difficult to make an apple to apple comparison when it comes to polling data.

But no, the impression that some Democratic lawmakers have been spinning to reporters, that an income tax fares worse in the polls than a sales tax hike, simply isn’t true.  In fact, the data I’ve seen from last week’s poll shows exactly the opposite, with an income tax out-polling a sales tax 47% to 40%.  Meanwhile, what support there was for a sales tax increase was incredibly soft, with only 16% responding “Definitely Approve,” compared to 27% for an income tax.

And that is consistent with all the other polling data of seen.  A recent Elway Poll showed an income tax slightly out-polling a sales tax, 53% to 51%, while a March 2009 poll, again a survey of 800 respondents, surprised income tax proponents and detractors alike with the proposal’s initial level of support:

“This measure would establish a two percent state income tax only on income above $300,000 a year for individuals or above $600,000 a year for married couples filing jointly. If the election were held today, would you vote to APPROVE this referendum, or would you vote to REJECT it?”

(TOTAL APPROVE) = 56%
DEFINITELY APPROVE 37%
PROBABLY APPROVE 16
[LEAN APPROVE] 3
[LEAN REJECT] 3
PROBABLY REJECT 7
DEFINITELY REJECT 30
[UNDECIDED] 5

Considering the income tax is purported to be the third rail of Washington politics, those results aren’t bad, and arguably represent a more neutral survey of the public’s initial impression than one conducted while voters were in the midst of filing their federal returns.

I’m not a big fan of poll-driven lawmaking, but since one side in this debate is attempting to discredit the high-earners income tax by pushing cherry-picked data to lawmakers and reporters, I feel the need to set the record straight.  There has not been a single poll this session that has shown top line support for a sales tax hike to be significantly higher than that for a high-earners income tax, while all the polls show what support there is for a sales tax increase to be unnervingly soft.  That’s why the health care coalition has been backing away from the sales tax proposal… their well justified fear of the squishy middle.

Yes, neither proposal has polled above 60 percent, the magic number the initiative and referendum industry considers the bare minimum level of initial support for a ballot measure to warrant a substantial financial investment.  But as the surprising level of support for a high-earners income tax has already shown, conventional wisdom can sometimes be wrong.

Back in June of 2005, polls showed support for Initiative 912’s repeal of the 9.5 cent gas tax increase to be running as high as 70 percent, yet once voters learned the costs and consequences of the measure, it failed in November by a comfortable ten point margin.  Likewise, in 2006, opponents were initially concerned about support for Initiative 920’s proposed repeal of the estate tax, but after voters learned revenue was targeted to education, the measure was trounced by a resounding 24 point margin.

Washington voters have recently proven their willingness to tax themselves for the services and investments they want and need.  And they’ve proven even more willing to tax the wealthy.

And while that final sentiment may be derided by some as a call to “class warfare,” it is hard to make that argument with a straight face in the state with the most cruelly regressive tax structure in the nation.

“Why am I here?”  It is a profound question, and one every Democratic lawmaker in Olympia should ask themselves during the final weeks of this chaotic session, especially when it comes to the issue of whether to put a revenue proposal on the fall ballot.

Why did you run for public office in the first place? What exactly brought you to Olympia? And when you retire (voluntarily or otherwise), how will you judge the success of  your legislative career?

Over the past five years or so I have had the opportunity to talk one on one with a number of Democratic legislators, and I think it safe to say that an overwhelming majority agree with me, at least in principle, on the necessity of revenue reform.  There is near unanimity in the Democratic caucuses that our current tax system is overwhelmingly regressive and unfair, and a strong consensus that it is also inadequate and unsustainable as is… that there exists a long term structural revenue deficit that, regardless of the economic cycle, virtually assures that the ability of state government to deliver services and invest in infrastructure will gradually erode over time.

Privately, off the record, most Democratic legislators will tell you that they support an income tax, and that they truly believe such reform to be in the best interest of the people of Washington state.  And the majority of them even have at least a basic understanding as to why.  But I am now pretty confident that a majority of Democratic legislators also believe an income tax to be a political impossibility… that it will never happen, and that it is futile to even try.

And it is these conflicted naysayers most of all who should ask themselves the question:  “Why am I here?”

Did you come to Olympia simply to balance the budget as best you can?  To do less damage to our environment, our schools and our social safety net than your Republican counterparts?  Did you really come to Olympia to fix problems in the short term that you full well know our structural deficit will inevitably unfix over time?  Are you comfortable being caretakers of our state’s slow decline?

If you understand that we need to move toward an income tax, yet cannot imagine a path toward getting there, why bother even showing up?  Shouldn’t you just step aside and make room for somebody who is at least willing to try?

And no, that’s not meant to be a rhetorical question.

Lacking any real economic arguments, our friends at the Seattle Times editorial board whine “No, no, no to increased taxes,” by attempting to frame their status quoist opposition as part of some populist rebellion.

WEDNESDAY’S tax protests should not be brushed off — particularly not by state legislators contemplating tax increases.

Five thousand people rallied in Olympia Wednesday in opposition to more taxes. Others rallied in hundreds of places around the nation, making a point about federal spending and taxes, and also about state spending and taxes.

Some will discount all this by saying it was organized, or that the rally sprung from the fringe. Of course it was organized. All protests with people carrying signs and listening to speakers are organized.

But when organizers get 5,000 people to come to Olympia on a workday, it is evidence of a strong feeling.

Really?  Fomented for weeks by FOX News and right-wing talk radio, and promoted locally by the Republican Party and the well-funded Evergreen Freedom Foundation, five thousand people show up in Olympia, and that’s reason enough for legislators to dismiss the notion of a tax increase?  5,000 protestors?  That’s the magic number?

So… if I were to get five thousand and one people to show up in Olympia rallying to support a high-earners income tax, would that be equally compelling?  Would that convince the Times that a tax increase should be considered?

No, of course not.  They’d dismiss us as the organized fringe, a small group of true believers out of step with the mainstream… you know, despite the trio of recent polls showing support for a high-earners income tax steadily above fifty percent.

But I’ll tell you what… I’m up to the challenge.  If the Times editors assure me that they would treat my pro-tax rally just as credulously as they treated the FOX teabagging party, I’ll bring at least 5,001 pro-tax protesters to Olympia.  And if I can’t, well, I guess the people will have spoken.

Word out of Olympia is that momentum toward putting a high-earners income tax measure on the fall ballot is stalling, despite polling whose fundamentals show that an income tax probably has a better chance of passing than the third of a cent sales tax increase the conventional thinkers prefer.  There just doesn’t seem to be the stomach for it amongst the House leadership, nor enough clamor from well-healed constituency groups to steel their nerves.

“Next year,” income tax advocates are being told.  “Maybe next year.”

Yeah.  Right.

Next year would be the worst time for House Speaker Frank Chopp to see an income tax measure on the ballot, helping to turn out Republican votes in the many suburban swing districts on which much of his majority is built.  2011 doesn’t look much better, and then we’re into a gubernatorial election year in 2012, so you can rule that out as well.  By “next year,” of course, the powers that be mean “some other year,” which really means “never.”

It’s not the mere prospect of losing this battle that so disappoints me—I didn’t go into it reasonably expecting a win—it’s the manner in which the proposal has been summarily rejected by so many in our Democratic establishment.  While the vast majority of folks I’ve approached just seem befuddled at the issue even being raised, I’ve occasionally found myself the target of laughter and eye-rolling and even a little anger.  And I’m not talking about the vile trolls in my comment threads or the Seattle Times ed board; some of the worst of it has come from Democratic elected officials and their closest advisers.

There’s a good chance a high-earners income tax ballot measure would fail, and either way, it would certainly be an uphill fight.  I know that.  I’m not stupid and I’m not naive.  But this year, with this economy and this budget crisis, and with Barack Obama newly elected to the White House, was the perfect year to at least start the conversation about progressive tax reform… the polling proves at least that.  Yet apart from Senate Majority Lisa Brown, a handful of other legislators, and a couple of constituency groups, the Democratic establishment has largely refused to even enter the debate.

With such an unprecedented revenue shortfall to fill, this was never going to be a satisfying legislative session.  But I didn’t expect the process to be just as disappointing as the result.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKyqtSOYucs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

As I’ve written before, I’m rather agnostic about the specifics of HB 2261, the education reform bill that supposedly expands the definition of basic education, but includes no funding mechanism to actually pay for it.  In fact, at the same time legislators are patting themselves on the backs for bucking the teachers union to pass this bill, they’re also preparing to cut $2 billion from K-12 education.  And that’s an odd definition of reform.

I know there’s a lot of mumbling in Olympia about how this reform bill will serve as a necessary roadmap for setting funding priorities once the economy, and thus the budget, recovers, but I’m not so sure I buy the thesis that the budget will ever fully recover.  Rather, without some sort of structural revenue reform, I think we’ll more than likely look back on this crisis as marking a permanent ratcheting down of state spending power, and thus a permanent ratcheting down of state services and infrastructure investments. Even under a run of the mill economic recovery (and few economists expect even that) it’s hard to imagine state coffers recovering to pre-recession levels as either a percentage of personal income, or inflation-adjusted per capita revenue, let alone increasing to the level necessary to support the type of new spending promised.

So where will the extra money come from?

As the Washington Education Association angrily points out, the backers of this education reform bill can’t tell you, because to be honest, they don’t really have a plan to pay for these reforms.  But rather than just putting together angry YouTubes (however righteous), perhaps the WEA might want to accept their legislative defeat, and then fill the void by proposing a funding plan themselves.

I think you all know where I’m going with this.

As the Seattle Times’ Andrew Garber reports today, yet another poll shows a high-earners income tax, while far from a sure thing with voters, is anything but DOA:

A recent survey by Seattle pollster Stuart Elway found that 53 percent of voters questioned were “inclined to favor” an income tax on individuals making $250,000 or households earning $500,000.

The poll also found that 51 percent of voters questions favored small increase in the sales tax increase to help fund the Basic Health Plan.

Writing about the poll results, Elway said, “Although Washington voters are open to the discussion of tax increases to help close the $9 billion state government budget gap, they remain to be convinced. It will not be an easy sell, but most will not slam the door in your face if you bring up the subject.”

By my count that’s the third poll to show a high-earners income tax polling in the low to mid 50’s, and while one generally wants ballot measures to start off at least 10 points higher, it’s a damn sight better than anybody had expected going into this debate.  And to the “experts” who insist that’s not good enough, I say tell me… when do you ever expect conditions to get any better?

Remember, an income tax was approved at the polls in 1932 by a 70% margin, yet a similar constitutional amendment was handedly rejected by voters just two years later.  Sometimes, the time is just right.

So, yeah, that’s my advice to the WEA… the time is right.  If the Legislature won’t show you the money, then be proactive and show it to them:  a high-earners income tax.  It’ll never happen without your support… and without some sort of substantive revenue reform, these education reforms will never be fully funded.

In the overall scheme of things I know it’s not a big deal, but the piece of legislation that irritates me most this session is the one that allows car dealers to increase their “document fee” from $50 to $150.  What a totally bogus scam.

See, this is the way it works.  You do all your homework, educating yourself on the real dealer invoice, and all the various incentives and rebates out there, and then you go to the dealer and attempt to negotiate the best deal you can… you know, one in which you get a fair value and the dealer makes a fair profit, sometimes as little as a few hundred bucks, depending on the car.  And then when you go to sign the paperwork you find this extra $150 tacked on.

“What’s that?” you ask.  “Oh, that’s the state document fee,” the salesman responds, and you curse under your breath at yet another state tax you weren’t aware of, before coughing up an additional $150.

But it’s not a tax, and it’s not mandatory, and you just gave the dealer an additional $150 in profit above what you thought you had just negotiated.

That’s just downright deceptive, and the state’s got no business helping car dealers trick customers into padding their profit, regardless of the current sorry state of the industry.  If a 150 bucks is the difference between making a big enough profit or not, charge 150 bucks more, or don’t make the deal.  Nobody’s holding a gun to your head.  But it’s just plain dishonest to go into negotiations knowing the customer is already standing $150 in a hole.

Of course, everybody already expects car dealers to be deceptive.  I just don’t see why the state government has to enable them in that endeavor.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H32_DWjTkx8[/youtube]

These are just some of the tasteful, thoughtful signs from teabagging parties around the nation.

President Barack Obama unveiled today his strategic plan for building a network of high-speed rail corridors across America, and yes, the Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver B.C. corridor is on it.  (Noticeably missing is the fantasy Las Vegas to Disneyland line that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned voters about in the same breath he ridiculed the notion of volcano monitoring.)

Obama calls the $8 billion allocated thus far a mere “down payment,” and the 90-mph definition of “high speed” is a far cry from the 120-mph designation in Europe, but both the plan and the money mark a dramatic turnaround from our nation’s recent rail strategy… or lack thereof.

As for the Pacific Northwest corridor, don’t expect a big pot of cash anytime soon.  The bulk of the money will initially go to shovel ready projects so as to create jobs as quickly as possible (the $8 billion is part of the $787 billion stimulus package,) but some money will be available for planning and engineering.  I’ll leave it to the geeks at Seattle Transit Blog to tell us what we might expect on our corridor, and when we might expect it.