Washington Liberals

When: Monday, February 23, 7 – 8:30 p.m.
What: Forum: “Social Security: Why It’s Not Broke & How We Can Expand It”
Speakers: Nancy Altman & Eric Kingson, authors of Social Security WORKS!: Why Social Security Isn’t Going Broke & How Expanding It Will Help Us All
Joining them on the program: Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant & WA State Labor Council President, Jeff Johnson

Where: UFCW 21, Joe Crump Hall, 5030 First Ave. S., Seattle

Things have heated up in D.C. as the Republican controlled Congress has initiated their first major attack on Social Security. The featured speakers will provide us up-to-date information about the attacks and the best ways to respond.

For more info see, Microsoft’s tax avoidance schemes: national and in Washington State.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking/2015/02/06/gaius-publius-and-alan-grayson

Many Washington State legislators were elected courtesy of the Koch Brothers. In particular, Andy Hill and Steve Litzow squeaked by in 2010 via attack ads funded by the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity.

The State Republican Party was later fined for violating election reporting requirements in that election.See
State Republicans fined for violating reporting requirements in 2010 elections.

Adopting a budget will be the main task of Washington’s legislature in 2015. The state’s elected leaders face a big challenge. Income inequality is constricting family budgets and the whole economy, here in Washington and nationwide. Washington also has an outdated tax system that no longer fits our economy.

As a result, public revenues from sales and business taxes are growing a lot more slowly than the costs of educating our kids and providing basic services and infrastructure. To pass a state budget that provides a solid platform for thriving families and broadly shared prosperity, our legislature must raise progressive new sources of revenue and approve new policies to tackle inequality.

Washington’s economy needs a stronger foundation

Our state budget sets the foundation on which our economy and state residents can thrive. But the combination of recession, growing income inequality, and an outdated and inflexible tax system is undercutting that foundation.

• Washington has the 4^th highest number of kids per teacher among all the states, and ranks 42^nd in our level of investment in K-12 education.
• The share of state funding for higher education has fallen steadily for two decades, and plummeted with the recession. Among all states, Washington had the 9^th highest tuition hikes between 2008 and 2012.
• Early learning, mental health services, child protection, senior health, state parks, and other key services have been underfunded through the recession.

Over the past 20 years, Washington’s budget has declined as a percentage of the state’s economy. If revenues came in today at the rate they did in the year 2000, Washington would have an additional $3 billion each year to invest in education and other priorities. Many economists agree that cutbacks in government spending have prolonged the recession.

Improving services for an opportunity economy?

Washington is projected to collect about $2.7 billion more in 2015-17 than in the 2013-15 biennium – enough to cover the growing population of school kids and others, but no improvement in services. However, both the voters and the courts have told the legislature that services must improve.

In November 2014, Washington voters passed Initiative 1351 to lower class sizes in all grades. That requires more teachers, more class rooms – and more money. In the McCleary decision, the Supreme Court said the legislature must invest enough to insure that all kids have access to an education that will fully prepare them for life in the 21^st century. Together those come to about $4 billion in added costs for 2015-17.

We also must invest more in early learning and higher education if we want to help all kids achieve their potential. Then there’s everything else the state does, like protect mentally ill people, children, and seniors. Most state services were cut to the bone during the Great Recession and also need more funding to protect public health and safety.

Income inequality and a flawed tax structure

Most other states modernized their tax systems years ago with a state income tax, so they can reap some benefit from the skyrocketing wealth of the 1% and plow those resources back into early learning, small class sizes, and affordable college educations. But Washington still relies on a 1930’s-style system based on the sales tax. As a result, we have the most regressive tax structure in the nation, with low and moderate income households and small businesses paying too much, and the wealthiest individuals and corporations paying relatively little.

Sales tax revenues are growing more slowly than Washington’s population and economy for two main reasons. One is that people now spend more of their income than in earlier years on things that aren’t taxed: either services, such as health care and education, or on goods purchased over the internet, where sales tax collection is spotty. The other reason is the growing concentration of wealth among the top 1 or 2%, while incomes stagnate for the majority. Wealthy people simply cannot spend all their income.

Solutions for Washington’s budget dilemma

1. Progressive new revenues: Governor Inslee has proposed two new revenue sources for the state that will begin to address the fundamental shortcomings of our tax system. One is a 7% tax on capital gains from selling stocks and bonds. Retirement accounts and the first $25,000 would be exempt, so only the wealthiest would pay. The other is a new carbon tax that would be paid by the largest corporate polluters in the state. It would provide new money for education and transportation projects, while reducing pollution and slowing climate change.

2. Ending tax breaks: Washington’s tax code is full of special preferences for industries ranging from aerospace manufacturing to agriculture. Governor Inslee proposed ending a few tax breaks in his draft budget, but also added some new ones, including for high tech companies. A much more rigorous evaluation is necessary of which tax breaks actually create jobs and middle class consumers rather than merely padding shareholder profits and adding to the problems caused by income inequality.

3. Tackling systemic tax reform: Ultimately to provide educational opportunity for all in our state, while protecting public health and safety and establishing the foundations for thriving communities, Washington will have to modernize its whole tax structure. Over a decade ago, a bipartisan Tax Structure Study Committee recommended adopting a personal income tax, lowering the sales tax, and reforming business taxes to make the system less regressive, more stable, and better able to fund essential services.

4. Tackling income inequality: Providing individual opportunity and raising incomes for low and moderate income working families will also help our state’s revenue picture. More money in the pockets of hard working families means more economic activity, more jobs, and more public revenue. The 2015 legislature can help rebalance our economy by:

• increasing the state minimum wage to $12;
• passing statewide paid sick and safe leave so workers don’t lose income when they get sick or have a sick child;
• approving family and medical leave insurance, to provide paid leave for new parents and workers with serious health conditions or seriously ill family members;
• strengthening equal pay opportunity for women; and
• fully funding educational reforms from early learning through university.

Excerpted from Washington 2015 Budget Guide: Solutions for building an opportunity economy in the Evergreen State »

Conservatives love to hate government, and they often say that the free market is more efficient than government at providing services.

Inconveniently for conservatives, government-run health care systems in other industrialized nations provide higher quality health care at far less cost than America’s complicated market-based system.  And Medicare has lower overheads that private insurance.

And it’s not just health care. Government can do banking better too.  The state-owned bank of North Carolina outperformed Wall Street.

Conservative messaging about government

That government is inefficient is the central dogma of modern conservatism.  Until the 1980s, the extreme anti-government stance of the John Birch Society and libertarians such as Barry Goldwater was a fringe movement on the right.   Republican presidents such as Eisenhower and Nixon were moderates.  Starting with the Reagan presidency, extremism became the norm within the Republican Party.   Reagan famously said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”  But even Reagan raised taxes. Nowadays he’d be too moderate to win a GOP primary.

Anti-government libertarianism is a huge fraud foisted on the American public. It’s been used to justify tax cuts and deregulation that crashed the economy; drove up the debt;  concentrated wealth and power in the hands of the few; led to underfunding of education, research, social services, public media, and infrastructure; caused wasteful privatization of defense and education; resulted in the commercialization of medical care; and led to exporting of jobs and profits.

It’s important to appreciate the extent to which conservatives have succeeded at convincing vast swaths of the American public that government is inefficient. Harold Meyerson in the winter 2015 issue of The American Prospect reports that 54 percent of voters in the 2014 elections believed that government is doing too much.  And 52 percent of white working class people agree with the statement “government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient.”

Meyerson  also reports that in the 2014 elections Democrats lost among white working class voters by 30 points.  No doubt, this is partly due to wedge issues (guns, gays, and God), racism, and opposition to immigration. But GOP messaging about alleged government inefficiency must have contributed to the outcome too.  Ramussen reports that Americans continue to trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the economy. (On the other hand, the low turnout of 36.4% in the 2014 elections probably reflects voter mistrust of both parties.  In Sept of 2014, Congress’s approval rating was at about 14%, according to Gallup.   People who bother to vote may be voting for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.)

Conservatives succeeded at convincing much of the public that government doesn’t work by making sure government doesn’t work for any but the few.  Waste, fraud and corruption flourished when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress during the early years of the Bush II presidency.  When conservatives were out of power, in the beginning of the Obama Administration, they filibustered and voted (often unanimously) to obstruct and dilute the Democrats’ policy proposals. Even if there was evidence that a government program worked, Republicans opposed it, on principle. (Here is an example.)

Yes, conservatives complain about government waste and spending. But it’s Reagan and Bush II who drove up the debt, via tax cuts and disastrous wars, while Clinton had a huge surplus and under Obama government spending actually decreased.

Conservative messaging and policies have convinced Americans that government can’t be trusted and that it offers little of value, though without government we’d be hunter-gatherers, and without government protections and services, corporations couldn’t function (Government is like a Computer Operating System). Fraud and reckless deregulation crashed the economy.  Without government bailouts we’d be in a depression.

In the rest of this article I’ll summarize some facts about healthcare and about how the US system is less efficient than overseas systems that rely on government to run or regulate healthcare. I’ll then formulate a high-level explanation why government is more efficient for  health care and certain other industries.

The US health care system is inferior

The World Bank reports  that in 2009 (before the start of the Affordable Care Act) the US spent 17.7% of GDP on health care — a higher percentage than any other nation on the list.  In contrast, France (which conservatives love to hate) spent 11.7% of GDP on health care.  In 2011 OECD reported that the US spent $7900 per capita on health care. The next highest spending was $5348 in Norway.  France spent $3930.

France is rated number 1 in health care quality by the World Health Organization. The US ranks #38, behind Costa Rica and Dominica.  France covers every resident of France and guarantees everyone a roughly equal level of treatment.  They have more doctors per capital and more hospital beds.  They go to the doctor more often than we do (8 times a year versus 5).

The Commonwealth Fund rated the United States dead last for “healthy life expectancy at age sixty.” They also rated the US the worst of the developed countries for avoidable mortality. “The number of people under seventy-five who do die from curable illness was almost twice as high in the United States as in … France, Japan, and Spain.”

On infant mortality too, the US rates low: 6.8 out of 1,000 births. That’s higher than Poland (6.4). Sweden has 2.4 deaths per 1,000 births.

Reid says that a key reason for low infant mortality overseas is that most countries offer free prenatal and neonatal care.

Japan spends about half as much per person on health care  (8%of GDP) as the US (17.7%) . But “the average Japanese visits a doctor about 14.5 times a year — three times as much as the US average, and about twice as often as any nation in Europe.”   They do twice as many CAT scans and three times as many MRIs, and hospital stays are on average much longer (8 to 10 days for birth). They use twice as many prescription drugs as we do.  And Japan has the highest life expectancy.   “The Japanese system, in short, provides care to every resident of Japan, for minimal fees, with no waiting lists — and excellent results.”

In 2007 OECD ranked 34 countries on health outcomes. The US ranks 31st in infant mortality, 28th in low birth rate, 26th in life expectancy, and 25th in maternal mortality.

America is one of the few industrialized nations that doesn’t provide health care for all its citizens. In The Healing of America: a Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Healthcare,  Washington Post correspondent T. R. Reid describes four models for health care systems: the Bismarck Model, the Beveridge Model, the National Health Insurance Model, and the Out-of-the-pocket Model.

With the Bismarck model — used in Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, and Switzerland –  health care providers and payers are private entities.  The payers are insurance companies. As in the US, most employees pay insurance premiums via payroll deductions. But there’s a difference:  the insurance companies are basically non-profit: they are highly regulated and the government determines fees via negotiations among affected groups.   Universal coverage doesn’t require public ownership of doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. But it does require price controls:  the reasoning, I suppose, is that it’s unethical to let the market determine health care costs, because people will pay as much as they can to save their lives and because it’s unfair for rich people to get preferential treatment, at least when it comes to baseline care.  People can still purchase supplementary insurance.

With the Beveridge Model — used in Britain, Italy, Spain, most of Scandinavia, and Hong Kong (China permitted them to continue using it when it took over from Britain) — all or most hospitals and clinics are government owned, and all payments are handled by the government. This is what people have in mind when they speak of socialized medicine.  Reid points out that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is a pure Beveridge Model.

With the National Health Insurance Model — used in Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea — health care providers are private but the payer is the government. In the US, Medicare follows the National Health Insurance Model.

The Out-of-the-pocket Model is used in third world countries, as well as in the US for the tens of millions of American who have no insurance. In fact, the US health care system is mismash of all four models. As Reid puts it:

For most working people under sixty-five we’re Germany [Bismarck Model].  For Native Americans, military personnel, and veterans, we’re Britain [Beveridge Model].  For those over sixty-five, we’re Canada [National Health Insurance Model].  For the 45 million uninsured Americans, we’re Cambodia [Out-of-the-pocket Model].

Lots of single-payer advocates on the left in America were outraged that President Obama and the Democratic leadership didn’t give them a seat at the table when negotiations were underway early in the Obama presidency for developing the affordable Care Act (Obamacare).   I share that outrage, but I also believe that something like the Bismarck Model, with highly regulated insurance companies, would be an easier fit  in the US.  The ACA is a step towards a Bismarckian model. ACA contains provisions that limit the profit insurance companies can make to 85% of revenue. See The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!.

Countries overseas regard health care as a human right.

All the developed countries I looked at provided health care coverage for every resident, old or young, rich or poor. This is the underlying moral principle of the health care system in every rich country — every one, that is except the United States.

“Blacks and Hispanics are less likely than whites to get treatment for serious disease and are more likely to die from it.”

Reid writes that when he tells people overseas about the bankruptcies and lack of health care in the US, people are shocked.

Yet every country struggles with providing affordable, high quality health care, and everyone complains about their systems. But people overseas think the US system is worse.

In The American Health Care Paradox: Why Spending More is Getting Us Less, Elizabeth H. Bradley and Lauren A. Taylor argue that a major reason for poor health outcomes in the US is our low spending on social services compared to other countries.  The US spends a huge amount on medical care, but relatively little on education, housing, mental health services, nutrition services, unemployment compensation, job training, and preventive medicine.  If you take into account both medical and social spending, US spending is average compared to other countries, according to Bradley and Taylor.   The authors present evidence that it’s not only poor people who suffer from lack of social services.  Middle class white, employed people also have poorer health outcomes compared to people in Scandinavian countries.

Once upon a time, I got into a discussion with a stranger about medical care. I mentioned single-payer and other government run systems overseas. Unbeknownst to me, the stranger was a conservative and was armed with his talking points. He angrily said that such hospitals are filthy, the people get poor care, and there is little choice of provider.  The evidence from books I’ve read suggests otherwise.

Arnold S. Relman, in A Second Opinion — Rescuing America’s Health Care, reports on empirical studies comparing for-profit and not-for-profit medical care in the U.S.

Almost all of this evidence supports the conclusion that business ownership of health care facilities is more expensive and less efficient than non-profit ownership (that is, has higher overhead and administrative costs), despite all the mythology to the contrary, and that it delivers services of no better — and sometimes inferior — quality.

Relman, a former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, laments the conversion of medical care from a service profession to an industry. Marcus Welby was the model of the beloved family physician who had a fundamental professional obligation to look after the welfare of his patients. Nowadays, the commercialization of medical care has resulted in a situation in which many doctors are investors in businesses (diagnostic services, pain treatments, etc) and are in business arrangements with drug companies and equipment manufacturers. The fee-for-service nature of medical care, and the reliance on third-party insurance, encourages over-spending and over uses of diagnosis and treatment options that are not necessarily in the best interests of the patient.

Relman reviews studies that evaluate the costs and effectiveness of for-profit versus not-for-profit hospitals. The studies suggest that for-profit hospitals are actually more expensive at providing care, contrary to the dogma of free-market fundamentalism. On average, too, the for-profit hospitals cover fewer indigent patients, leaving those to the public and teaching hospitals. Quality too is not better in for-profit hospitals.

One careful study in 2002 reviewed all the available data from U.S. private for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals, pooled the results, and found that the risk of patient death was 2 percent higher in the for-profit hospitals.

Relman speculates that the reason is that for-profit hospitals reduce staffing to cut costs.

Relman reports about studies showing that the mortality rate, accounting for factors like age and severity of disease, was 20 percent higher in for-profit kidney dialysis centers than in not-for-profit centers, and patients were 26 percent less likely be placed on waiting lists for life-saving transplantation (presumably because the investors have an incentive to continue profiting from the patients).

Similarly, for nursing homes, “deficiencies in patient care identified by state inspection where 56 percent more common in private for-profit than in private-not-for-profit facilities and 43 percent more prevalent than in public facilities.” Nursing staff levels are generally lower in for-profit nursing homes.

Consumer-driven health care and HSAs

Conservative economists and the The Bush II Administration encouraged the use of Health Saving Accounts (HSAs) and other “consumer-driven” health care initiatives. Their goal was to encourage consumers to assume more of the responsibility to control costs, by letting them choose between providers and services and by giving them more “skin in the game.”

For example, my employer contracts with Premera to provide me with a high-deductible PPO plan and an associated Health Savings Account. My employer contributes each year to the HSA. From the HSA I pay for medical and dental expenses — mostly co-pays and deductibles. Any money left over in the HSA at the end of the year is mine to keep.

Relman is skeptical of the ability of such consumer-driven health care (CDHC) to control costs. First of all, there is an “asymmetry of information”: the health care providers know a lot more about what the patient needs than do the patients. To a large extent, this is unavoidable. Moreover, it is desirable for a knowledgeable physician familiar with the patient to manage care and recommend services. Shopping for services undercuts managed care. Secondly, the sickest 10 percent of the population accounts for about 70 percent of health care spending, and that spending exhausts the deductibles. High-deductible plans are appropriate for healthy, young people, but won’t work for the sick people who consume most of the health care budget. Also, there is evidence that CDHC disproportionately influences the medical care of poorer people, since they have to choose between rent and food, on the one hand, and medical care on the other hand. Moreover, Relman points out, CDHC addresses only the consumer side of health care. It does not directly control costs that are encouraged by the fee-for-service, high-tech, overly specialized nature of America’s health care system. In short, providers and insurance companies have an incentive to keep costs high.

Another factor is implementation: I’ve had my HSA plan for three years but only recently did I realize that I am supposed to shop around for a primary care physician. My employer never told me this, and though Premera reps came to our office, they never mentioned this, to my recollection. I had figured that Premera negotiated the prices that providers can charge, but a Premera rep recently told me that it’s not so for regular office visits: that responsibility is mine. I found out from a colleague that my provider, Swedish Medical, apparently has much higher costs on average than other local physicians. Premera has a tool on their website for comparing costs of providers. I needed to enter a service name — I entered “physician office visit” — and the tool showed dozens of doctors and clinics, with details about names, addresses, insurance coverage, and price ranges and average prices.   Many entries omitted prices.    But among those that did list prices, the average prices are less than half of what Swedish has been charging me. Here are some typical entries from the tool (I have omitted the providers’ names):

Treatment Estimate:   Range: $71 – $151  Average:  $111
Treatment Estimate:   Range: $61 – $114  Average:  $88
Treatment Estimate:   Range: $73 – $112 Average:  $92

Swedish Factoria Primary Care has

Treatment Estimate:  Range: $107 – $143 Average: $132

But I often pay far more than $132.   A recent bill was for $216; the physician just reviewed the outcome of some blood tests.  Am I being ripped off? I presume so, but it’s hard to say. Was the extra money worth it because of better care? I have no way of knowing. I’ve been using Swedish Medical for almost a decade and I have come to know and trust the physicians.  I figure if had I known about Swedish’s high charges, I (or my insurance company) could saved thousands of dollars over the last decade.

They ain’t Marcus Welby, I guess.

What can one conclude from this anecdote?  Obviously, nothing definitive, but it’s a warning that CDHC is unlikely to work if consumers aren’t given the tools and information needed to make decisions.

By the way, another reason I am dissatisfied with Swedish Medical is that they were recently acquired by Providence, which is controlled by Catholic bishops.  In the waiting room, I notice that educational materials all mention “unborn child” instead of “fetus.”

Why government-run health care is more efficient

The government-run models are better able to simplify billing, eliminate overheads (for advertizing and paperwork), and negotiate lower fees with providers. US insurance companies spend about 20 percent of premium revenue on administrative expenses. In France the corresponding figure is below 5 percent. Traditional Medicare spends 1% of costs on overheads. Medicare Advantage, which is privately managed, spends about 6% of costs on overheads. (source)

Lovers of free markets say competing corporations are better able to innovate than top-down planners.

Yes, competition may be beneficial for high-tech ventures such as auto making, software, and electronics. But for economic sectors such as health care payment, health care delivery, insurance, loans, and banking, there is little scope for innovation. (Beside, derivatives and other “innovative” financial instruments may have done more harm than good. They certainly require substantial government regulation to avoid abuse and risk.) For such low-tech industries, bureaucrats are needed to apply rules, process paper work or data entry, submit bills, and pay funds.  Such industries can be more efficiently handled by a  central government bureaucracy with low overheads, such as Medicare.

Furthermore, even in the case of high tech industries, government-funded researchers in universities and government labs have provided many innovative ideas that were the basis for commercial products. The Internet was developed by DARPA.  In The Truth about the Drug Companies, a former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine writes of the drug industry, “Instead of being an engine of innovation, it is a vast marketing machine. Instead of being a free market success story, it lives off government-funded research and monopoly rights.” See also The Horrifying Hidden Story Behind Drug Company Profits.

There has been work on health care innovation, but much of the innovation requires central planning or targets specific technologies.

France has the carte vitale card, which contains encrypted health histories of the patient and which is used for initiating payments.  It’s innovative.  There is little or no paper work in the French medical system.  That innovation required central planning.

Arnold Relman, in Second Opinion, referenced above, points out that patients are not in a position to effectively evaluate the quality of medical care. They generally must trust the professional judgement of their doctors. When seriously ill, patients are in no position at all to compare prices. You don’t want to shop around for the cheapest surgeon. Medical care is not a market like other markets. But that’s what it’s become in the U.S., under the influence of free market fundamentalism.

Relman summarizes: “Thus, the best available empirical data are consistent with the conclusion that in health care, the business imperative to make profits does not produce the social benefits claimed by market advocates.”

In the case of private corporations, profits motivate innovation.  Profits also motivate rent-seeking, fraud, and monopolistic practices. In the case of academic researchers, researchers innovate because of the desire to get tenure and respect, but also because they enjoy the thrill of learning and the chance to contribute to the pool of knowledge and technology.

Conservatives prefer individualism over cooperation and top-down control. But corporations engage in extreme levels of top-down planning and control. When you work for a corporation, you must coordinate with others and follow directions from management.

Evolution may be based on competition. But in human affairs we need to design our artifacts. Why shouldn’t that apply to many aspects of a national economy?

Is cooperation (collectivism) a dirty word for conservatives?

 

This afternoon, a miracle happened in Washington State. The Washington State Democratic Party became the first Democratic State Party in the nation to pass a resolution opposing Common Core! This is huge because Washington State is not only the home state of Bill Gates. It is also the home state for the SBAC Common Core test. If Washington state pulls out of Common Core, it could bring the entire project crashing to the ground.

We realize that several Republican controlled states have already rejected Common Core. But it is much easier for a Republican controlled state to reject Common Core than for a Democratic controlled State to reject Common Core. All Republicans have to do is call it “ObamaCore” and blame the entire thing on those “Damn Democrats” and Republicans will jump at the chance to get rid of Common Core. For example, the Washington State Republican Party passed a resolution opposing Common Core over a year ago.

But not all states are Republican states. Nor do children come with D’s or R’s stamped on their foreheads. For a Democratic state to pass a Resolution opposing Common Core requires going against a sitting Democratic President and also going against nearly your entire Democratic Party political leadership – who are all aligned with Obama and Arne Duncan just as Common Core tests and Common Core books are (supposed to be) aligned with Common Core standards.

A Brief Lesson in Political Organizing
For parents and teachers living in Democratic controlled states and wanting to escape from the death grip of Common Core, we would like to explain how this miracle happened – so that you can use this process as a template to pass a similar resolution in your (Democratic) state.

First, we have been working on this issue for nearly a year. So it will take a lot of patience and determination to overcome the wealthy billionaire controlled wing of the Democratic Party. Do not expect overnight success. You should write a well organized resolution that takes no more than one page. Our successful resolution is at the end of this article if you would like to read it. Feel free to copy it. Unlike Common Core, it is not Copyrighted!

Second, it is helpful if at least some members of your group are already members of your state’s Democratic Party. One of us, David, has been a Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) in the Democratic Party for more than 14 years in East King County, near Seattle Washington. The other of us, Elizabeth, is a new PCO for a different legislative district in North Seattle, Washington. Even if you do not like your local Democratic Party, and you think they are evil, you should join it and start attending monthly party meetings in your legislative district. You will find that Democrats are not as evil as you may have been led to believe. Many of them are parents and teachers just like you. They care about our kids and about the future of our country just like you.

Third, it is helpful if you have passed other resolutions at various levels of the Democratic Party in the past and have at least some idea of how the process works. We have previously passed SIX resolutions in the State Democratic Party before the Common Core Resolution. These include resolutions in favor of a State Public Bank, restoration of Glass Steagall Banking Regulations, Getting the Money out of Politics, and Restoring a Fairer GED test. So this was our seventh successful resolution. But it was also by far the hardest to pass.

Fourth, it is essential to start at the legislative district level. Start with your own legislative district. Attend several monthly meetings. Get to know the other folks attending the monthly meetings. Find out who are parents and teachers and whether their kids are struggling with Common Core. Most kids are having a terrible time. Ask these parents and teachers to help you pass a resolution in your legislative district. After you pass a resolution in your legislative district, work on passing the resolution in neighboring legislative districts.

Fifth, also join Parents Across America (PAA) or start a chapter in your city. We are lucky that Seattle already has a chapter of Parents Across America. One of their leaders, Dora Taylor, was willing to come with us to several legislative districts and help us get the measure passed in those legislative districts. Eventually, we were able to get the Resolution Opposing Common Core passed in four legislative districts.

Sixth, also join your State Party Progressive Caucus. This is also referred to as the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.” These folks really support public schools and they are really opposed to the billionaires privatizing and taking over public schools. The more wealthy democrats are called “New Democrats.” These are the folks who are in it for the money and are paid off by the billionaires. The benefit of having the resolution passed by the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party is that these folks are often extremely long time Democrats and they really know the ropes and how to get things done – despite the opposition of the corporate or “New Dems” wing of the Democratic Party. Many are also on the County and /or State Resolutions Committees.

Seven, the next task is to get the resolution considered by the County Resolutions Committee. It is helpful if you have friends on this committee and/or can get to know the members of this committee. This group usually meets once per month.

Eight, the next task is to get the resolution considered by the State Resolutions Committee. This group only meets three or four times per year. There are lots of rules that have to be met to get a resolution considered by the county committee or the state committee. These rules are usually posted on the County Democratic Party website and/or the State Democratic Party website.

Ninth, get to know your progressive State Party leaders. These are elected representatives who care more about kids and parents and teachers than about keeping billionaires happy. We are lucky in our State to have State Senator Maralyn Chase in our corner. Having a well respected leader of the State Party on your side will help because the billionaires will certainly have some state party leaders on their side.

Tenth, get some upset parents and upset teachers on your side. We were very lucky to meet a group of upset teachers organized by a determined and courageous teacher, Becca Richie, who understood that Common Core is very bad for kids. These parents and teachers played a crucial role in helping us get the last few votes we needed to get the resolution passed because thankfully teachers are still highly respected in our state and state delegates were willing to listen to these teachers talk about how Common Core harms kids.

Eleventh, build a website where parents, teachers and State Party delegates can go to learn more about why they should support your resolution. We built a website called “Weapons of Mass Deception (dot) org. To learn more about how to build your own website using a free platform called Joomla, visit one of our other websites: http://buildyourownbusinesswebsite.org/

Strategy At the State Party Meeting
After getting the resolution passed at a legislative district meeting and or a county meeting, it is forwarded to the state party for consideration at the next state party meeting. You need to go to this meeting a day in advance – because the State Resolutions Committee usually considers resolutions the evening before the main state party meeting. Bring a one page flier of no more than ten reasons why those on the resolutions committee should vote for your resolution. Arrive to the committee meeting early and make sure that everyone on the committee gets a copy of your handout. In Washington State, there is usually about 30 people on the resolutions committee. Your state may be bigger or smaller than our state.

The first task of the resolutions committee is to “clean up” your “poorly written” resolution. Do not argue with them. They have been writing resolutions and cleaning up resolutions for years. Let them fix your resolution. They know what they are doing. The second task of the resolutions committee is to decide whether to recommend that the main group “pass” or “not pass” or “table” the resolution or send it to the main body “without recommendation” so it can be debated by the main body. Because Common Core is very controversial in Democratic states, do not be surprised if it is passed to the main body without recommendation. That was what happened to us.

The state resolutions committee usually meets on a Friday night and the main State Party meeting is the following afternoon from 1 to 4 pm. We prepared about 300 handouts to pass out. These were 40 for the Resolutions Committee plus 60 for the Progressive caucus meeting on Saturday morning plus 200 to place on chairs at the main state party meeting 30 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to start. After attending the progressive caucus meeting on Saturday morning, meet with your group of parents and teachers. Hopefully, they will have signs and their own handouts to pass out at the main meeting. Hopefully someone experienced with the process should explain what will happen at the state party meeting.

The goal is to get your team to the meeting before it begins and pass out the fliers with one on every chair. Then have parents and teachers on your team circulate around the big room as the state delegates begin to arrive. The goal of each parent and teacher is to talk with just a few delegates before the main meeting is called to order. You will have about 20 minutes after the delegates arrive. There were 8 of us and with each talking to about five delegates for about 4 minutes each. Together, we were able to share our stories with about 40 out of the 200 delegates. Our goal was simply to “tip” a close vote in our favor. As you approach a delegate, ask them if they have heard of Common Core and if they have decided how they will vote on the resolution. Most delegates will be undecided and will usually give you a couple of minutes to explain to them why they should vote for the resolution. If a delegate has already decided, then move out to someone who is undecided. Do not waste these precious minutes trying to convert someone whose mind is already made up. If a delegate does not support the resolution, then just chalk it up to “Bill Gates and his billions in corporate propaganda.”

You also need to meet with the State party delegates who will each give a two minute speech in favor of the resolution. You need at least two and hopefully three speakers qualified to speak. These folks will likely be state committee delegates from the legislative districts that passed your resolution earlier in the year. They need to not only know about the drawbacks of Common Core, they also need to be able to speak clearly. It is also helpful if they are well known and well respected by other members of the Democratic Party. So choose wisely.

We were lucky to get Sarajane Siegfriedt, the chair of the King County Legislative Action Committee and member of the State Resolutions Committee to speak in favor of the motion. We were also lucky to get Brian Gunn, the chair of the State Progressive Caucus to speak in favor of the motion. Brian said, “Corporations are looking at our children as commodities. We’re allowing corporations that produce these materials and sponsor these tests to treat our children as sources of income…a source of profit. And that source of profit is our own children.”

Our final speaker for the resolution was Richard May, a leader of the Whatcom County Democrats who is also a parent. Richard spoke of the negative impact Common Core had on his two daughters. Richard said that “Common Core sucks… All of the parents and teachers in Bellingham hate it.”

Do not be surprised if the wealthy wing of the party tries to sabotage the issue. In our case, the leaders of the party read a letter from a well known state senator urging the group to vote against the resolution. She warned the group that should this resolution pass, it would make passing a state budget and getting school funding much more difficult. This of course was a lie. Common Core costs our state more than one billion extra dollars for the tests and books. But the goal of the billionaires is not to tell the truth. It is simply to deceive the public.

Next was the big vote. We thought it would be very close – especially after the letter from one of the leaders of the democratic party was read. As it turned out, we won the vote by a two to one margin – with more than 120 state party delegates voting to ignore their own state party leaders and ignore their own President and support our resolution. This huge landslide victory proves that Democrats care just as much about the well being of our children as Republicans.

The other good news is now that Common Core is officially opposed by both the Republican and Democratic Party in Washington State (perhaps the first time we have ever agreed on anything), there will be a bill introduced in the state legislature in the next week to delay or perhaps even halt Common Core in Washington State.

In our opinion, the most crucial element of our success was the presence of real parents and real teachers speaking from their hearts about how Common Core harms their kids. Without these parents and teachers we do not believe we could have been so successful. The other important factor was the year we spent building our team and building support one person at a time and one legislative district at a time within the Democratic Party. Common Core is an extremely complex issue that has billions in marketing used to fool parents. It takes one on one talks to overcome this marketing blitz. But we proved it can be done. We hope you have as much success in your state as we had in ours.

Below is a copy of our successful Common Core resolution. Be sure to visit our website to learn more about the drawbacks of Common Core. Here is the link.
http://weaponsofmassdeception.org/

And feel free to email us if you have any questions or need addition help.

Regards,
David Spring M. Ed. and Elizabeth Hanson M. Ed.
springforschools@aol.com

Resolution Opposing Common Core State Standards

WHEREAS the copyrighted (and therefore unchangeable) Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of controversial top-down K-12 academic standards that were promulgated by wealthy private interests without research-based evidence of validity and are developmentally inappropriate in the lowest grades; and

WHEREAS, as a means of avoiding the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment prohibition against federal meddling in state education policy, two unaccountable private trade associations–the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)–have received millions of dollars in funding from the Gates Foundation and others to create the CCSS; and

WHEREAS the U.S. Department of Education improperly pressured state legislatures into adopting the Common Core State Standards and high-stakes standardized testing based on them as a condition of competing for federal Race to the Top (RTTT) stimulus funds that should have been based on need; and

WHEREAS as a result of Washington State Senate Bill 6669, which passed the State legislature on March 11, 2010, the Office of the Superintendent of Instruction (OSPI) adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on July 20, 2011; and

WHEREAS this adoption effectively transfers control over public school standardized testing from locally elected school boards to the unaccountable corporate interests that control the CCSS and who stand to profit substantially; and

WHEREAS the Washington State Constitution also calls for public education to be controlled by the State of Washington through our elected State legislature, our elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction and our elected local school boards; and

WHEREAS implementation of CCSS will cost local school districts hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for standardized computer-based tests, new technology, new curricula and teacher training at a time when Washington is already insufficiently funding K-12 Basic Education without proven benefit to students; and WHEREAS some states have already withdrawn from CCSS;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we call upon the Washington State legislature and the Superintendent of Public Instruction to withdraw from the CCSS and keep K-12 education student-centered and accountable to the people of Washington State.

Originally published at WeaponsOfMassDeception.org

Campaign co-directors: We are delighted to announce that Kyle Murphy and Duncan Clauson will be starting on February 1 as campaign co-directors! Kyle, who worked last year as Field Director for the Yes for Seattle Transit campaign, will focus on Organizing; Duncan, who has an MPA from the UW Evans School of Public Affairs, will focus on Operations. Both have already been working hard on the campaign as volunteers, and as full-time paid staff they will follow in the footsteps of our previous stellar staffers Claire Meints and Kristy Royce. You can reach Kyle and Duncan at kyle@carbonwa.org and duncan@carbonwa.org, but please note that they don’t start full-time until the first of February!

Media and readings: One of our eight winter deliverables is to become part of the conversation, and as evidence that we’re succeeding note that our carbon tax effort was highlighted in the first question of this Grist interview with Governor Inslee. The governor took a little jab at carbon taxes—“Don’t bring a feather to a knife fight”—and as we build momentum we can expect more jabs. (See here and here and here for additional examples, the last two being responses to pieces like “How B.C. does climate policy right” from Matt Horne of Pembina and the amazing editorial on “Why Stephen Harper should love carbon taxes” in the Globe and Mail: “Aspiring politicians outside of BC, book yourself a plane ticket, and go visit your future.”)

Now, it’s not for CarbonWA to get into a back-and-forth with the governor about carbon taxes v. cap-and-trade—CarbonWA is the relief pitcher, and the relief pitcher doesn’t criticize the starting pitcher!—but we will provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of our policy, so if you’re interested please check out my two new research posts: “Carbon taxes are better than you think (Part I: Transportation)” and “Carbon taxes are even better than you think (Part II: Electricity)”.

Other readings for the week include Cliff Mass’s “What should Governor Inslee do about climate change?”, Sara Cate’s “Saturday Soapbox” in the Yakima Herald, Sustainable West Seattle’s Andy Silber on an “Alternative approach to climate change negotiations”, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer’s “Raise the gas tax. A lot” in the Washington Post, and these three pieces from carbon pricing advocates in Oregon. Also, Governor Inslee’s bill has been officially introduced as SB 5283 / HB 1314… and the state Senate voted in a rule change that apparently requires a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to pass the governor’s proposal.

Materials: Another one of our eight winter deliverables is to update our website and materials. This is something that Duncan will be spearheading when he comes on board full-time, but for now I want to post (and encourage feedback on) this PPT presentation (based on my UW panel presentation last week) and on our 2-page brochure (which as you’ll see is intended to be printed and folded in half).

Endorsements: We are delighted to announce endorsements from the Washingotn State UU Voices for Justice and from Climate Action Bainbridge (formerly Coal Free Bainbridge). They join other endorsers like Olympic Climate Action, whose annual membership event is coming up Feb 8 in Port Angeles. Some of these groups have endorsed both CarbonWA and the governor’s effort and we think that’s terrific and are excited to pick up additional endorsements in the weeks ahead!

Events: I (Yoram Bauman) will be at the Earth Care Summit in Portland this weekend and am tentatively meeting folks in Vancouver WA this Sunday, so email me (yoram@carbonwa.org) if you want to join in! In Olympia, CarbonWA’s Akua Asare-Konadu and Thad Curtz will be presenting on Saturday Jan 31 as part of a Carbon Fee Forum co-sponsored by Olympia FOR’s Climate Group and Climate Solutions. And for folks in Bellingham, I know that CarbonWA’s Ben Silesky is planning a visit on T night Jan 27, so email him (ben@carbonwa.org) for details. As for Seattle, I have presentations on W Jan 28 (I’ll be doing my comedy-and-carbon-tax talk as part of Climate Week at the UU Church) and other talks in the weeks ahead at Seward Park Audubon and Pinchot University, plus the UW panel discussion I was part of last week was so successful that it’s going to be repeated at Town Hall on M March 16. Details on all our events here! And if you want to support Governor Inslee’s bill then there’s a hearing in Olympia on T Jan 27 at 1:30pm; details and more info from Climate Solutions or EPC.

As always comments welcome on the blog or via Facebook and Twitter.

Another reason to be liberal.

According to 75 Years In The Making: Harvard Just Released Its Epic Study On What Men Need To Live A Happy Life,

With regards to sex lives, one of the most fascinating discoveries is that aging liberals have way more sex.  Political ideology had no bearing on overall life satisfaction, but the most conservative men on average shut down their sex lives around age 68, while the most liberal men had healthy sex lives well into their 80s.  Vaillant writes, “I have consulted urologists about this, they have no idea why it might be so.”