he fourteen tax breaks proposed by the state Senate – despite a revenue shortfall and $1 billion funding deficit in K-12 education – beg the question: can we really afford this?

Some loopholes have their place, but as the state legislature tries to put together a budget that preserves essential state services with limited resources, every new tax break must be scrutinized. Even the most logical loopholes still mean funding siphoned away from education, health care, and critical infrastructure.

Take Senate Bill 5862, which would exempt mint growers and processors from sales and use taxes for the purchase of propane or natural gas, a loss of $300,000 from essential state services. The entire Republican caucus on the Senate Ways and Means committee voted in favor of this tax giveaway, plus Democrat Sen. Brian Hatfield.

Or Senate Bill 5866, which would extend the sales and use tax exemption for hog fuel for 11 more years. This loophole – which will cost the state $63 million over the next two years – was originally created to help the timber industry. But now a few multinational oil companies receive 98% of the subsidy – at a time when their profits are already sky high.

Then there’s Senate Bill 5622, which promises to create “thousands of jobs” in Washington’s airplane retrofitting industry. Maybe this “Boeing exemption” will help to restore some of the jobs being moved out of state?

There’s also Senate Bill 5831, which would provide a tax exemption for gun clubs to buy clay targets. The bill’s Republican sponsors want to exempt gun clubs from paying sales tax on clay pigeons. While the state would only lose approximately $29,000 over the next two years should the loophole be enacted, the bill is a convoluted giveaway to gun clubs.

All of these tax breaks have a purpose – some promote or discourage certain activities, while others simply provide preferential treatment to specific industries/organizations. But in a time of difficult budgeting, should more tax giveaways really be considered by the legislature? Washington’s tax code already has more than 500 exemptions, and when the budget gets squeezed, these importance of these loopholes are rarely weighed against critical budget items like public schools. Instead, state services – like public education – die a death of a thousand cuts.

In the short-run, some of the Senate’s proposed tax breaks may or may not encourage economic activity. But it’s important to remember that low taxation in itself doesn’t fuel economic growth. A favorable business climate requires more, including an educated workforce, critical infrastructure, and a healthy populous. Without these and other critical services offered by state government – all of which cost money – the business climate isn’t so favorable after all.

Tax breaks aren’t free – in this case, they come at the cost of providing high-quality, low-cost primary, secondary, and higher education. So what will it be: clay pigeons or textbooks? Hog fuel or health care?

Originally published at Washington Policy Watch

Late last night, legislators came to an eleventh hour agreement to choose Washington kids over multimillionaires. By fixing Washington state’s estate tax, lawmakers have prevented the loss of nearly $160 million in resources that go to educating children.

Closing the estate tax loophole is a good place to start, but much more still has to be done to ensure that adequate resources are included in a final budget agreement. Closing ineffective tax breaks and making additional technical corrections would generate revenue that could be used to invest in creating jobs and growing our economy.

The estate tax fix (House Bill 2075) prevents the loss of roughly $160 million in refunds ($97 million) and lost collections ($63 million) due to last year’s Bracken decision. The agreement goes beyond addressing the court ruling and makes broader changes.

Specifically, HB 2075;

• Allows the exemption (currently for estate’s worth up to $2 million) to increase annually by a measure of inflation;
• Increases the rates for the wealthiest households,  making the tax more progressive overall;
• and provides a $2.5 million deduction for small businesses. Estates with larger business interests, defined as those with a total value greater than $6 million, would not be eligible to claim this deduction.

Lawmakers should build on this momentum and look for additional ways to bolster resources such as closing ineffective tax breaks and addressing the way our state taxes telecommunication companies.

The House and Senate budgets take very different approaches to generating additional resources. Overall, the House proposes to raise roughly $255 million in revenue by closing tax loopholes currently on the books. Yet, only $47 million of this revenue is actually included in their budget proposal. The remainder ($208 million) must be approved by the passage of HB 2034, which proposes to close or narrow six additional tax breaks in order to invest more in education.

The Senate’s budget proposal closes zero tax breaks, and moves in wrong direction by creating 14 additional loopholes which would cost just over $11 million in the next budget cycle. Independent of its budget, the Senate proposes to raise $47 million in new revenue by transforming the sales tax exemption for Oregonians into a refund program (SB 5871).

Both the House and the Senate have proposed – the House in its budget and the Senate in SB 5873 – to eliminate the sales tax exemption on residential telephone services thus normalizing tax treatment for traditional, wireless and cable telecommunications companies. The fix protects $110 million dollars in resources in the next biennium while also protecting the state from future lawsuits from telecommunication firms.

Any final budget must include additional revenue to grow  our economy and build the middle class. Lawmakers have a choice – working families, seniors and kids, or ineffective and outdated tax breaks.

Originally published at Budget & Policy Center

I read an excellent article in The Nation by Eric Alterman, “Cuomo v.s. Cuomo.” Alterman describes how Andrew Cuomo (current governor of NY and son of former governor Mario Cuomo) is socially liberal and, unlike his father, economically conservative.

Andrew Cuomo passed gun control and gay marriage. But he’s extremely anti-tax. He cut taxes and maneuvered to help Republicans, even Tea Partiers, win seats in the legislature.  Cuomo won praise from Republicans including Chris Christie.  New York Times report Michael Powell called him the “bulldog for the rich.”

But some of Cuomo’s rhetoric is progressive and inspiring, especially about campaign finance reform.

Alterman wondered whether Cuomo’s progressive-sounding rhetoric about campaign finance reform is just a smokescreen meant to seduce Democratic primary voters into supporting him in 2016, when he may run for president, especially if Hillary drops or fizzles out.

Is Cuomo another Obama?  Or another Rodney Tom (liberal about gay marriage and women’s rights but conservative about budget and labor issues)?

If it’s a choice between Hillary and Andrew in 2016, I’ll likely choose Elizabeth Warren.

We banned the box!

On June 10^th, Seattle City Council voted unanimously to pass the Jobs Assistance Ordinance. With it’s passage, employers in Seattle can no longer ask about criminal history on a job application or reference criminal history in advertising. This law will give thousands of people with a criminal record a second chance at building a new life.

Real Change supported this ordinance through a campaign led by Columbia Legal Services. Over 47 vendors signed or wrote letters of support and others provided personal testimony during a council hearing. One vendor, Nick Maxwell, was even quoted in The Seattle Times. He explained, “When I got out of prison, and put in a job application, I was honest about my incarceration, but I found all doors closed…If a person has paid his debt to society, he should have an opportunity for a job and to feed his family. People shouldn’t have to serve a life sentence for their past.” Another vendor, Sharon Jones, was featured on KUOW: “I’ve always answered that question correctly…now I can’t get back to work. I just graduated from medical school and I’m trying to be a phlebotomist technician, and I sure would like to get a job.”

Thanks to all who emailed, provided testimony and called councilmembers!

Help Close the Survival Gap: Legalize Tent Encampments!

Real Change supports a proposal before the city council’s housing and human services committee that would legalize homeless encampments on public and privately owned property and help expand the number of faith-based sites. With 2,736 unsheltered people counted outside during the January One Night Count, tent cities save lives and they need to be supported by the City. Read about Council Bill 117792 and learn more in Tim’s Director’s Corner.

What you can do:

• Email or call councilmembers TODAY and ask them to support Council Bill 117792. 206-684-CITY.
• Join us June 25^th at City Hall to show your support! We need to pack the hearing to demonstrate our support for this bill.

State Advocacy: Reject SB 5895, Enact Revenue!

Senate Bill 5895 imposes an arbitrary spending limit to non-education investments and would force deep cuts to child services, mental health, veteran’s benefits, and senior services. As Washington Low Income Housing Alliance explains: “At a time when record numbers of people are living in poverty and are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, we should be looking to increasing our state’s investment in the safety net, not demanding on the passage of bills that seek to destroy it.”

Take Action with WLIHA to reject SB 5895 and support a budget that protects the safety net and invests in the Housing Trust Fund. While you’re at it, support Governor Inslee’s plan to close tax loopholes through AFSCME.

From Finnish Lessons, by Oassu Salberg: “The Finnish experience shows that consistent focus on equity and cooperation — not choice and competition — can lead to an education system where all children learn well. Paying teachers based on students’ test scores or converting public schools into private ones (through charters or other means) are ideas that have no place in the Finnish repertoire for education improvement.” (p 9)

Plan of this book

1. Finland has an educational system in which young people learn well and performance differences among schools are small — and all with reasonable cost and human effort.
2. This has not always been so.
3. In Finland, teaching is a prestigious profession, and many students aspire to be teachers. [pay is close to that of doctors]
4. Therefore, the Finns have the probably the most competitive teacher-education system in the world.
5. As a consequence, teachers in Finland have a great deal of professional autonomy and access to purposeful professional development throughout their careers.
6. Those who are lucky enough to become teachers are normally teachers for life.
7. Almost half of the 16-year olds, when they leave comprehensive school, have been engaged in some sort of special education, personalized help, or individual guidance.
8. In Finland, teachers teach less and students spend less time studying both in and out of school than their peers in other countries.
9. Finnish schools lack the standardized testing, test-preparation, and private tutoring of the United States and much of the world.
10. All of the factors that are behind the Finnish success seem to be the opposite of what is taking place in the United States and much of the rest of the world, where competition, test-based accountability, standardization, and privatization seem to dominate.

Additionally, formal schooling starts at age seven in Finland, later than in most other countries.   Some people say that Finland’s small size and homogenous population make it inappropriate as a model for the US, but Salberg points out that many US states have a smaller population, and Finland has absorbed a substantial number of immigrants in recent years.

See also

• 26 Amazing Facts About Finland’s Unorthodox Education System

• New data shows school “reformers” are full of it

• The State Constitution and other reasons to oppose charter schools

• Ed school dean: Urban school reform is really about land development (not kids)

• NO CONTEST: The Case Against Competition
• EDUCATION, INC.: Turning Learning into a Business
• THE CASE AGAINST STANDARDIZED TESTING: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools

Thursday night the state legislature passed a bill, SB 5296, that weakened the Model Toxic Control Act. I got email from Washington Conservation Voters asking me to thank legislators who opposed the bill. See Support our kids; end the Big Oil Tax Loophole.

According to Washington Environmental Council, the weakening allows private companies to potentially use public funds to do cleanups. It also creates an “alpha” account that overlaps an existing account.

The bad environmental bill passed the House by a vote of 67-18.

Concurrently, lawmakers passed a bill to fix the estate tax. The state Supreme Court had ruled that due to a technical problem with the estate tax law, the state Department of Revenue would have to begin sending out refund checks totaling up to $160,000,000. Just in the nick of time, before the DOR was to begin sending out checks, the legislature passed a bill, HB 2075, to close the loophole, and the governor signed it. See Wash. Gov. Inslee signs estate tax fix into law, Wash . House OKs change to state estate tax, and State House, Senate offer estate tax measures.

The Seattle Times article says, “The agreement on the estate tax measure was the first significant agreement between the House and Senate on budget issues.”

So, our lawmakers closed one loophole and opened another one.

Deputy state insurance commissioner and former legislator Brendan Williams describe the bills as follows: “Huge win for Big Oil last night in ‘bipartisan’ bill to modify voter-passed Model Toxic Control Act. Will of the people (MTCA) sacrificed to save another expression of people’s will (estate tax). Grateful to all who voted no; will be frightful to see what other ‘compromises’ come slouching forth.”

What perplexes me is: if there was a deal between the House and the Senate leadership to pass these two bills (allowing them to be brought up for a vote), why did so many Democrats vote aye for the bad environmental bill?    Perhaps the Democrats who voted for the bill want to go on record as helping Big Oil, so they can get campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.

On the other hand, a deal is a deal, and to save the estate tax perhaps the Democrats were forced to agree to give a gift to Big Oil.  If so, then maybe the nay votes by Democrats were symbolic. I suppose the caucus leadership doesn’t have absolute control over lawmakers, who are given freedom to vote their conscience, or otherwise, on bills.

If anyone knows more about what happened, please explain in comments below, or email me.

The Senate approved the estate tax bill 30-19; presumably the Republicans who voted for the bill wanted to go on record as supporting kids over millionaires.

Speaking of loopholes, the state House passed a bill, ESHB 2038 to close a loopholes that benefits Big Oil.  “Investing in the education legacy trust account for K-12 basic education and higher education by narrowing or eliminating tax preferences and extending taxes set to expire.”  According to Washington Environmental Council, the loophole was created in the 1940s to benefit the timber industry. Now 98% of the benefit goes to the oil industry.   The state could save $41 million per biennium if it closed the loophole. So far the senate, under control of the “bipartisan” coalition led by Rodney Tom and the Republicans has refused to go along with the House.

According to the email from the Washington Conservation Voters, the legislators who voted no on SB 5296 and who deserve thanks are:

Senators: Chase, Conway, Darneille, Eide, Fraser, Frockt, Hasegawa, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Murray, and Nelson.

Representatives: Bergquist, Carlyle, Fey, Fitzgibbon, Hunt, Jinkins, Kagi, Liias, Maxwell, Morrell, Pedersen, Pollet, Reykdal, Ryu, Sawyer, Stanford, Tarleton, and Tharinger.

The email also says there is still hope that the Big Oil loophole can be fixed: “By closing this loophole, $41 million will be freed up to directly fund education. Tell your legislator to choose kids over Big Oil.”

Of course, the Republicans are mostly to blame for this mess. Ultimately the problem is money in politics.

The quid pro quo and the weakening of the Model Toxic Control Act were completely missed by the Daily Journal’s Associated Press article on the environmental bill, Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee signs environmental cleanup fund bill into law.  The wording of that article gives the impression that SB 5296 strengthened environmental cleanup.

The Seattle Times article hints at the quid pro quo:

 The Senate majority has been seeking movement on a handful of policy bills, and during passage of its budget last week, lawmakers said on the Senate floor that revenue-related bills, including the estate tax, would not pass without some of those bills, including one dealing with workers’ compensation settlements. The Senate took the vote on the estate tax after the House quickly passed a measure dealing with environmental cleanup funds. That measure was also signed by Inslee Friday morning. The Senate also passed a wide-ranging education reform [sic] bill Thursday night that is now being considered by the House.

Addendum: Sen. Rodney Tom’s explanation of the SB 5296 (from the Senator’s email to constituents):

New law: Changes to state’s toxic-cleanup program aimed at creating jobs, improving environment 

In broad bipartisan votes the Senate and House of Representatives approved a bill – subsequently signed into law by the governor – designed to create jobs and improve Washington’s environment by improving the state’s toxic-cleanup program.

The state’s toxic-cleanup program and the hazardous-substance tax that supports it were created by voters through a 1988 initiative. Tax dollars flowing into the account have in recent years become a frequent target of diversions to the general fund. Meanwhile cleanups have lagged, leaving as many as 5,000 sites around the state awaiting action.

Senate Bill 5296 increases the number of toxic sites that can be cleaned and promotes job creation through those cleanup projects. It also generates long-term economic growth by renewing contaminated lands and making them suitable for re-development.

Funds generated by the hazardous-substance tax in excess of $140 million per year will be directed to the newly-created Environmental Legacy Stewardship Account to be appropriated on capital projects that meet innovation and efficiency standards. Appropriations from the account would have to be approved by the Legislature to ensure transparency and accountability.

Sam Seder nails it about libertarians and their puerile fantasies.

Building codes needed to protect against earthquakes?   “Are people in Haiti more free because they’re out from under the scourge of building codes?”  Government needed for safe water and food? A fire department?

“If you’re lucky you’ll be able to convince the rest of the American public that we should turn into Haiti.”

“It’s the most convenient fantasy world to live. It’s simply a way to go out and mentally masturbate on everything.”

Debate with the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Floria

Pirate TV this week

Gary Greenberg with Philip Cushman: An Exposé of Psychiatry’s ‘Bible’

Also available: , Mon. 6/17 8-9 pm, Thurs. 1pm, Sat. 1am on Seattle Community Media.

The American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM) is the profession’s bible of diagnosis. Its fifth edition, set for May, radically broadens the understanding of what constitutes abnormal behavior—and already is generating controversy. Gary Greenberg, a practicing psychotherapist and author of The Book of Woe, offers an exposé of DSM-5, revealing what he calls the deeply flawed process by which mental disorders are invented and uninvented and arguing that this new edition will encourage increased diagnosis and increased prescriptions—including medications whose consequences aren’t well-understood. Dr. Greenberg is joined in conversation by Dr. Philip Cushman, a core faculty member in the Psy.D. program at Seattle’s Antioch University.Thanks to Seattle Town Hall and University Book Store.

Watch Pirate Television in King County channel 29/77 Mondays 8-9pm, Thurs. 1-2pm, & Sat. 1-2am PST or streaming live on Seattle Community Media. Pirate TV streams several times a week on Puget Sound Access. Pirate TV also broadcasts on Free Speech TV: Details listed in FStv Schedule. FStv also has a PirateTV Website.

FStv Showtimes [PST]

Sat 6/15 12pm Randy Mandell, 7pm Randy Mandell
Sun 6/16 3am Deepa Kumar, 12pm Deepa Kumar

http://archive.org/details/scm-322606-garygreenbergwithphilipcushma

Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2014. Given her hawkish history as Secretary of State, and given her connections to her triangulating husband and his crowd, it’s likely that progressives would oppose many of her policies.

Hillary Rodham Clinton by Wikipedia

On the other hand, she’s strong on issues such as health care and women’s rights.  She’s probably tough enough to stand up to the Republicans.  Moreover, she almost won the nomination in 2008, and now it’s her turn; America deserves a female president, and she’d be a strong candidate.  Many women strongly support her.

Should progressives mount an effort to derail her nomination?

Now is the time to consider this issue, before her campaign gets momentum.

The King County Democrats’ Platform & Resolutions Committee is (favorably) considering the following two resolutions, the first one calling for cuts to Pentagon spending, and the second one opposing cuts to Social Security.

Concerning the Pentagon budget resolution, someone asked, “Have we considered impacts on WA employment re Boeing and re Joint Base Lewis-McChord? Might be significant too?”.

Tim Burns (chair of the 30^th District Democrats)  responded:

The effect on employment in Washington and other states is an important issue in this debate.  Larry Brown of the Machinist’s Union has raised this as well.  However, the effect of balancing the budget on the backs of the middle and lower classes is my main concern.  The sequestration is a heavy burden, especially on those mentioned, while the pentagon budget is expected to increase.  For example, why do we have over 500 military bases in 117 foreign countries?  In my opinion we are not defending our country, we are using our military to colonize the world.  There are tanks and aircraft in the budget that even the military doesn’t want or need.  Eliminating excesses like these would help to relieve the pressure on the budget instead of decimating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.  Redirecting the monies spent on the military to supporting infrastructure would make up for job losses and would be much better for the country than continuing the military-industrial complex proliferation.

I am a Vietnam veteran who believes that the last legitimate major military involvement was World War II.  The United States would be far safer if we quit making enemies around the world by our bullying tactics.

I added, “The military budget should not be used as a jobs program. If the government wants to create jobs, they should create them in some productive area, such as infrastructure repair and education, not in weapons manufacturing.   Also, military jobs typically yield fewer workers per money spent.”

Concerning the second resolution, note the final sentnece: “Be it further resolved that, going forward, we will refuse to endorse or support any federal candidate that either votes for or advocates for cuts to Social Security, and that all candidates seeking our endorsement or support should be made aware of this policy.”  Amen.

The Democratic platform, especially at the state level, is good. Would that our lawmakers would follow it.

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CUTS IN PENTAGON SPENDING

Whereas automatic across-the-board spending cuts went into effect on March 1, reducing discretionary spending by $1 trillion over the next ten years; and

Whereas Congress has not yet agreed upon a strategic budget package to undo the sequester cuts; and

Whereas Congress is beginning the process of setting Fiscal Year 2014 spending levels for the Pentagon; and

Whereas Pentagon spending, excluding nuclear weapons and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has increased by 35% in the last decade, while domestic discretionary spending has increased by only 12% during that period; and

Whereas the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified $70 billion wasted on major weapons systems in a period of just two years; and

Whereas reductions of military spending at the levels required by sequestration would constitute a 31% reduction from the 2010 wartime peak spending level, which would be smaller than the reductions following the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold Wars; and

Whereas the Pentagon can protect Americans by reshaping the budget and accompanying strategy to focus on 21^st century threats; and

Whereas think tanks and experts from across the political spectrum, including the Simpson-Bowles Commission, the Cato Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Project on Defense Alternatives, have identified hundreds of billions of dollars of Pentagon spending reductions that would not harm national security; and

Whereas Washington State will suffer this year as a result of domestic sequester cuts, including 160 teaching jobs at risk, 440 fewer low-income students receiving college aid, 2,850 fewer children receiving vaccinations, and $143,000 less to aid victims of domestic violence;

Therefore, be it resolved that we call on our Congressional Representatives and Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to work to develop a budget for Fiscal Year 2014 that balances the undoing of domestic sequester cuts with significant reductions in wasteful Pentagon spending, while preserving critical services for veterans and active duty military members; and

Adopted _________________ by __________________________________.

Submitted by Tim Burns, 253-874-6292

Chair, 30^th District Democrats, chair30lddems@aol.com

Resolution in Opposition to Cuts in Social Security

Whereas the current cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) applied annually to Social Security benefits and other government programs already fail to account for the higher inflation seniors experience due to their disproportionately higher health care costs; and

Whereas the proposal to subject COLAs to a so-called “chained” CPI (consumer price index) would result in an estimated 0.3% yearly reduction in those COLAs, amounting to an average annual reduction of about $130 per Social Security recipient, and a 9.2% reduction (almost $1400/year) by the time current 65-year-olds reach age 95; and

Whereas the concept of a chained CPI is based on the false premise that, as prices rise, consumers will simply shift their purchasing to less expensive goods and services, while many expenses unavoidable for seniors, such as drugs, health care services, food and property taxes, continue to rise inexorably; and

Whereas, in addition to over 56 million Social Security recipients, there are more than 15 million SSI and VA beneficiaries and military and federal civil service retirees who will be affected; and

Whereas the impact of those reductions will be greatest on those who begin to draw benefits at an earlier age (e.g., military and disabled), and on those who live the longest – typically women who have outlived their other sources of income, depleted their assets, and rely on these benefits as their lifeline to financial stability; and

Whereas generations currently coming of age (a) will have reduced lifetime earnings due to the ongoing recession, (b) will face unprecedented levels of student loan debt and are highly unlikely to ever have defined benefits pensions (and research has shown that 401(k) programs fail to sufficiently prepare Americans for retirement), and (c) will therefore be even more dependent than current retirees on adequate funding of Social Security and realistic COLA calculations; and

Whereas Social Security can be made solvent for at least 75 years, and its benefits increased, by the simple expedient of subjecting all earned income to the FICA tax; and

Whereas cutting Social Security and other safety-net programs would seriously jeopardize the American social contract that has been in place since the New Deal; and

Whereas two-thirds of poll respondents over 50 (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) have said they’ll be less likely to support anyone who backs Obama’s proposal to implement a chained CPI, which will result in severe negative repercussions for our Party in 2014 and 2016 if implemented; and

Whereas the Washington State Democratic Central Committee adopted, on April 27, 2013, a Resolution based on substantially the same factual assertions set forth above and concluding by urging our state’s Democratic Congressional Delegation to refuse to pass a budget that includes cuts to Social  Security and other benefits by implementing a chained CPI;

Therefore, be it resolved that we are in full accord with our State Democratic counterparts and specifically call on our own Democratic Representatives and Senators to refuse to support any budget proposal that subjects COLAs in Social Security and other programs to a chained CPI; and

Be it further resolved that, going forward, we will refuse to endorse or support any federal candidate that either votes for or advocates for cuts to Social Security, and that all candidates seeking our endorsement or support should be made aware of this policy.

Adopted ______________ by ___________________________

Originated in current form by the 30^th District Democrats;

Submitted by Chair Tim Burns, 253-874-6292, chair30lddems@aol.com

Edited by the KCDCC Resolutions Committee

Much is made of the principle that all of us should have an equal opportunity  to Food, Clothing, Shelter, Healthcare, Education, and so on (FCSHE+). That it is wrong to discriminate based on one’s color, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc., should be obvious to anyone capable of forming thoughts. Yet, in the US the Equal Rights Amendment could not garner the necessary support of 38 states to become a constitutional amendment. Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans continue to suffer chronic social and economic disadvantages compared to white Americans. Lesbians, gays, transsexuals are viciously discriminated against throughout our society. And on and on.

Of course, one could argue that someone who is blind should not be given a job as a baseball umpire; yet, such exceptions are often raised, not as concerns to be accommodated, but to quash the entire concept of equal opportunity. Certainly, exceptions attend nearly every moral imperative, but while exceptions should be addressed, they should not be used as a means to destroy the imperative itself. During the 1970s, for example, conservatives cried that if the ERA passed, men and women would have to share the same locker rooms and bathrooms, i.e., all hell would break loose. These same conservatives didn’t give a damn that women’s incomes were less than men’s, as long as they didn’t have to urinate next to someone of the opposite sex.

That in the twenty-first century we must continue to fight for equality of opportunity for all people is a moral outrage. But even if we could guarantee equality of opportunity for all, the fight would not be over, for what we ultimately must demand is not just equal opportunity to FCSHE+ but the right to have FCSHE+. Having an equal opportunity to buy a home is not the same as having a right to live in a home.
In our society, FCSHE+, like all goods and services, are viewed as commodities to be bought and sold. Our only concern is that we not discriminate against the buyer based on her religion, color, gender, and so on. Yet we can and must discriminate against the buyer based on her ability to pay for these commodities. Discrimination based on one’s wealth and income, is not only acceptable in a market economy, it is necessary to the functioning of a market economy.

A commodified society such as ours, where everything and everyone has a price, naturally regards equality of opportunity as its pinnacle of fairness, its cornerstone of moral rectitude. The principle of inalienable human rights, on the other hand, rights that cannot be bought and sold, is anathema to a commodified society.

From a humanistic perspective, we must regard FCSHE+, not as commodities, but as human rights available to every member of society. Our super-rich, profit-obsessed, corporate warmongers, however, would like us to believe such rights are unaffordable. “Nothing,” they say, “is free in life. Who will pay for these?”

A graduated income tax is a start. If our taxes can pay for cruise missiles, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and the most invasive eavesdropping system in the history of the world, our taxes can pay to feed, clothe, and shelter our people.

Imagine the human potential we could unleash if everyone was guaranteed healthy food; clean and beautiful clothing; safe, clean, and dignified shelter; comprehensive healthcare; education through college that focused on developing your individual talents; ecologically sustainable transportation; leisure time for artistic or athletic development; and on and on.

But if the goods and services to meet our basic needs are free, won’t everyone stop working?!

To be continued . . . . (by Stephen)

Upcoming Actions:

June 14: Auction Protest at Northwest Trustee Services in Bellevue for Jen
June 21: Auction Protest at Northwest Trustee Services in Bellevue for Larry
Depending on the outcome of Jeremy’s next court hearing, we are prepared to re-establish the eviction blockade on June 25. If you have yet to join SAFE’s Rapid Response Network, so that we can alert you as soon as the sheriff arrives to evict, please visit www.SAFEinSeattle.org, click on JOIN RRN, and sign up

This Past Week:

June 5: By unanimous consent Nickelsville and SAFE agree to join forces for direct actions. Since many SAFE members are only one-step away from homelessness, this is a natural fit. SAFE members are humbled and thrilled!

May 30: SAFE members deliver demand letters to Seattle branches of Bank of America and Chase. Rather than accept a letter from their customers, the BofA on the NE corner of Third Ave. and Madison shuttered their branch 90 minutes early! According to a security guard, “We knew you were coming.” The same with the BofA branch on Second Ave. and Cherry, where non-SAFE customers couldn’t get in and those already inside couldn’t get out. We then walked north to an unsuspecting Chase branch and delivered our letters, after reading them aloud in the lobby, without incident. Our meet-up spot for this action was the SW corner of Third Ave. and Madison, next to Wells Fargo’s headquarters. Even though we had no plans to deliver letters to this bank, their security guards shut down the building’s normal entry ways.

Other Upcoming & Ongoing Events:

Tuesdays, 7:00 – 8:30 PM: Weekly SAFE Meeting: Bethany UCC, 6230 Beacon Ave S (NE corner of Graham St). All are welcome!

Questions? Comments?

You can reach us at info@SAFEinSeattle.org or 206-203-2125. Please visit our web site: www.SAFEinSeattle.org.

Thoughts & Opinions (SAFE welcomes written opinions from all of its supporters. If you have a letter or comment you’d like to include in the Thoughts & Opinions section of this Newsletter, please e-mail info@SAFEinSeattle.org. Opinions must be informative, relevant to the foreclosure/eviction crisis, and consistent with SAFE’s mission and principles. The opinions below do not necessarily represent those of SAFE.)

The video is produced by The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. “The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization formed in January of 2013. We have a leadership committee of over 100 organizations and civic leaders from throughout the state.”

Presumably this is in reference to the controversy over the estate tax (Wash . House OKs change to state estate tax, State House, Senate offer estate tax measures) and over Inslee and the Democrats’ plan to eliminate tax loopholes.

“He has written on the importance of fiscal discipline, the need to undertake entitlement reform sooner rather than later, the role of international trade in improving living standards, and the benefits of Wal-Mart in boosting living standards for low-income Americans.“– Far-right American Enterprise Institute praising President Obama’s choice as chief economic adviser.

from the American Enterprise Institute:

With state legislators still at an impasse over Washington’s budget, we’re unveiling a new interactive research tool that allows citizens, journalists, and students to easily examine how public dollars are being spent, and assess the impact of this year’s budget proposals on public schools and universities, hospitals, prisons, courts, health care, and other critical state services.

Visit the State of Working Washington to compare expenditures on budget items as broad as Public Education or as specific as the Department of Fish and Wildlife. For example: since 2009, state parks have lost 83% of their funding. Higher education now accounts for just 8.38% of the state budget – a loss of more than $650 million since 2002:

Screenshot from the State of Working Washington

All charts and tables display both “real” (inflation-adjusted) budget numbers calculated by the Economic Opportunity Institute, alongside “nominal” (unadjusted) numbers provided by the Washington State Office of Fiscal Management.

More screenshots and examples from http://stateofworkingwa.org/budget:

A pie chart showing distribution of funds to Higher Education in 2010

A line chart showing Department of Fish and Wildlife expenditures from 2002 – 2013

An itemized list of major spending areas in the 2010 state budget

I spoke with a Microsoft executive today at a party. He asked me what I do when I’m not working. I mentioned my blogging and gave as an example my article about the (wished for) protest in Redmond against Microsoft: Massive protest over Microsoft tax evasion.

I said that the protesters were angry both about Microsoft’s tax evasions (the company is exempt from many state taxes) and about its bringing in foreign workers.  The hiring of foreign workers is unfortunate given our nation’s high unemployment.  Moreover, it’s sad and ironic that the state’s budget shortfall — due in part to Microsoft’s tax breaks — has resulted in tuition hikes at public universities and in the legislature having trouble paying for primary and secondary education.

No wonder the state can’t educate enough engineers for Microsoft: the company refuses to fund public education!

Also, in 2010, Steve Ballmer donated $100,000 to the campaign to defeat I-1098, the bill that would have instituted an income tax on the richest 1 or 2% of Washingtonians. (See Ballmer and Bezos opposing income tax initiative I-1098.)

What surprised me was that this Microsoft executive said that 98% of the developers on his team (over 100 workers in total) were foreign born.  He estimated that 95% of all engineers at Microsoft are foreign born.  In contrast, the business side of the company has a much higher proportion of Americans.

In the past, I had applied for a software job at Microsoft and noticed that most of the interviewers were Asian.  I used to work at Amazon, and about half of the software developers there were foreign-born.  But I was unaware that such a high proportion (~95%) of Microsoft engineers are foreign born (and presumably were hired from overseas).  That proportion is incredible and certainly newsworthy.

I’m not sure how to verify the proportion. I doubt that Microsoft reveals the facts about its percentage of overseas workers.

I discussed with this executive the banality of the evil of our economic system, and, indeed, of our empire.  Most of the individual people who benefit from injustices are probably personally amiable and kind. But they get sucked into the system, which is corrupt.   Soldiers who fight for our empire overseas are mostly just doing their job.    Almost everyone who has money and who invests in the stock market or keeps their money in banks probably supports evil corporations that engage in morally reprehensible behavior.  (I’m sure some of  the companies that my 401Ks invest in engage in evil behaviors.) Politicians like Cheney, Bush, Paul Ryan, and Ronald Reagan are probably pleasant people in person, and I bet think they’re doing good for the country, or for their friends.

The Microsoft executive is personally amicable and kind, and he was sympathetic to my points.   He himself immigrated to the US to work at Microsoft.  He speculated that Americans who are smart and motivated tend to gravitate towards careers in medicine or finance.  (That makes sense, given the corruption and inefficiency of our health care and financial industries, which result in high pay.)  He also said that some of the European engineers working for him expressed surprise that the company gets away with paying so little in taxes.  He said that those foreign engineers who choose to become citizens probably become Democrats — which is ironic, given that many Republicans favor loosening the restrictions on immigration of foreign workers.  Congress is planning to raise the visa limit for bringing in foreign workers, in response to lobbying by companies such as Microsoft.

At the party, others and I discussed corruption, which we agreed is common in every country.  Many places are even worse than America when it comes to corruption: in many developing countries, you have to pay bribes to police officers and to government workers, if you want to avoid arrest and get anything done.  Someone said that US cops are paid enough so they don’t need to demand bribes in order to get by.   As things get worse here, expect to see corruption to spread further in society.

When an empire collapses, corruption spreads like a cancer.

posted on youtube by Zeke Hoskin

If you know more about who created and sang this, please let me know.

Fair Elections Seattle, and the 37th LD Democrats have submitted the following resolution (slightly edited by KCDems platform committee) to the WSDCC.

WHEREAS the role of big money in Seattle campaigns continues to grow, increasing candidates’ reliance on wealthy donors to fund their campaigns; and

WHEREAS this reliance on big money discourages good candidates from running, reduces the relative influence of average voters, and decreases public confidence in our election system; and

WHEREAS a system that provides public matching funds to candidates who demonstrate a broad base of support from small donors will greatly reduce the influence of big money and will support grassroots candidates; and

WHEREAS several other states and cities (including Maine, Arizona, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles and others) have instituted public financing programs that have reduced the influence of big money, increased the diversity of candidates and donors, and increased the competitiveness of elections; and

WHEREAS in 2008 citizen activists successfully lobbied the Washington State legislature to allow cities to adopt public financing of campaigns by a vote of the people; and

WHEREAS on March 22, 2013, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission unanimously recommended that the Seattle City Council adopt public financing of campaigns and submit it to the people for a vote;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we call on the Seattle City Council to adopt a robust program of public financing for campaigns for all City races, and to send it to the people for approval.

Adopted ______________ by _____________________________

Sponsored by Fair Elections Seattle, www.fairelectionsseattle.com

It seems odds to look back at the 2005 legislative session, my first as a House member, as a pinnacle of progressivism.  After all, it was eight years ago.  George W. Bush was President.

Yet consider: In 2003, legislative Democrats were routed by their own governor, Gary Locke, and a one-session Senate budget chair named Dino Rossi, in adoption of the 2003-05 biennial budget.  Senate Republicans were artful in exploiting what I call “Gohomeitis” – it seems no principle on earth will stand in the way of adjournment.  On June 5, 2003, the wait was over, and the 58th state legislature passed its budget in special session.

Having been burned so badly in 2003, Democrats in 2005—with restive new members and new Governor Chris Gregoire – moved forward on taxes.

That session, the last state transportation tax package passed. It was high drama. After passing the Senate by the narrowest of margins, 26-22, it failed in its first House floor vote. After an emotional caucus debate, the “Dime Package”—which actually increased gas taxes by 9.5 cents for three years—passed 54-43.

In November, voters sustained the package – rejecting Initiative 912, the talk show-inspired initiative (it was sponsored by John Carlson) that would have repealed the tax, by a 55 percent margin.

Also in 2005, Democrats needed to reinstate an estate tax that was effectively repealed by the Washington Supreme Court during the session.

The measure to reinstate the estate tax passed on a strictly party-line vote: 25-24 in the Senate, with all Republicans, plus nominal Democrat Tim Sheldon (D-35), opposed, and 50-48 in the House – with then-Republican Sen. Rodney Tom (who switched to the Democratic Party in 2006 but subsequently took the helm of the Republican-dominated Majority Coalition Caucus—among the opponents.At least a few Clark County Republicans appear to hope the vital I-5 crossing between Oregon and Washington collapses into the Columbia River.

The restored tax was dedicated to education.  When opponents filed Initiative 920 to repeal it in 2006 to repeal it, 62 percent of Sheldon’s constituents, and 57 percent of Tom’s far more affluent suburban constituents, sided with Democrats in keeping the progressive tax.

The votes on Initiative 912 in 2005 and Initiative 920 in 2006 showed voters could agree with a bold legislature. No new taxes were raised until 2010. Despite the repeal of the candy and pop taxes that fall (through Initiative 1107), it is worth noting the bulk of taxes raised that session were never challenged—including a surcharge on the business and occupation tax for professional services, raising it from 1.5 percent to 1.8 percent of gross receipts. To put that figure into perspective, this tax was as high as 2.5% in the 1990s.  Fatefully, however, this surcharge, and a beer tax, was set to “sunset” this year.

This session has brought with it renewed interest in taxes.  The economic and public safety necessity of improving transportation funding was highlighted by the collapse of an I-5 bridge section into the Skagit River. And the Supreme Court has ruled that K-12 education is unconstitutionally underfunded, after years of recession-driven cuts.

Yet it is, at best, unclear that a Republican Senate will even allow transportation funding to move forward. At least a few Clark County Republicans appear to hope the vital I-5 crossing between Oregon and Washington collapses into the Columbia River.

On operating budget taxes, Democrats are now fighting a rearguard action.  Because the 2010 taxes expire July 1, simply maintaining them appears untenable.  After the sunset comes budgetary night.  And now, amazingly, the estate tax voters affirmed so overwhelmingly in 2006 is jeopardized.  Due to the October 2012 Washington Supreme Court Bracken decision, which involves complicated pre-2005 estate tax machinations, the state stands to lose money unless the Legislature acts.  The Republican senate is seizing the opportunity to cut a deal for wealthy estates.

I am not faulting the Democrats involved in current budget negotiations. I cannot understand all that they’re facing. The Senate situation seems especially impossible. Yet I do think we can look to the past to aspire to better things for the future.  Not only can we do better, we have.  Surely 2005 was not as good as it gets.

Originally published at Publicola