The Washington, D.C. based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities confirmed that tax revenues in our state have plummeted in the past few months---something our state's Revenue Forecast Council confirmed as well.
Right now, our state is at least $3.2 billion down in tax and fee collections and that is before the impacts of the eight-week Boeing machinists union strike are calculated.
According to the Center, identified as a liberal-leaning think tank, Washington and Idaho were among 15 states with significant revenue drops between July and September. Washington's revenues are down by 11.3% and Idaho is down by 9.3%.
Raising taxes and fees to make up the difference would send both states in a tailspin.
The humoristas at the New York Times took a shot at coloring the electoral map. Say what you will about the NYT, it's worth a chuckle - and who doesn't need a little humor these days?
From the Oregonian: "For years, the massive hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers have been blamed for killing young salmon on their downriver migration to the ocean.
But a striking new study released Monday found that for some endangered salmon and steelhead stocks, just as many young fish survive their journey through the Snake and Columbia dams as survive a similar trip down Canada's Fraser River, which has no dams.
Even longtime fish biologists were flabbergasted by the finding. They figured fish would have an easier time in rivers without dams than those with dams.
But even the authors of the study, including scientists based at Oregon State University, disagree over the meaning of the results and whether they indicate that Columbia dams are not as harmful to fish as long thought."
Seeing this story, I took my wife and a couple of our grandchildren to Bonneville Dam today (10/28) where fisheries biologists are working hard on the adult coho run and preparing for the incoming full fall Chinook run. Those biologists already processed a record sockeye run earlier this summer, the best in a quarter century. So while it is in the middle of the coho run and the fall Chinook are yet to appear in mass, here are some fish figures for Bonneville Dam adult salmon processing station:
The trap opened on August 24 for the fall count: So far, 46,782 coho and 16,487 Chinook have been collected. The total for the 2007 fall season was 11,305 Chinook and 34,366 coho. The total for the 2006 fall season was 17,823 Chinook and 42,003 coho.
If you are in southwest Washington you are bombarded by the Oregon radio and television ads in the Gordon Smith v. Jeff Merkley race. It has been non-stop for the last six months. Gordon Smith is the Republican incumbent in a tight race to save his U.S. Senate seat. Merkley is the Democrat state legislator challenger.
Unions are pouring millions to defeat Smith, who has a 56% voting record with organized labor. The difference is Merkley is a 100% union voter and supports replacing secret ballot elections in the workplace with a card check process where union organizers circulate cards supporting unionization and stand over the workers shoulder while he or she fills it out. Then, BINGO, the union is in.
Democrat Barack Obama supports card check while Republican John McCain opposes it. So if Obama wins, the only hurdle the unions have to clear is getting 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to stop a filibuster of their coveted card check legislation now the President Bush is headed for retirement. So while the U.S. House of Representatives, firmly controlled by Democrats, has rubber stamped the union card check legislation, the U.S. Senate has not been overcome a threat of a filibuster.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has, for months, been defending the 60-vote wall, is fully engaged in nearly every competitive Senate race. It may well spend $40 million this cycle, or double its 2006 effort. In many Senate races, the Chamber is proving the only outside help to underfunded Republicans. One of those races is the Smith-Merkley race in Oregon.
Even former liberal U.S. Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern (D-South Dakota) says card check is wrong. “That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans,” wrote McGovern. “As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor. I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA (so-called Employee Free Choice Act) risks silencing those who would speak.”
Sen. McGovern is correct. Remember that on election day.
Yesterday, Boeing and its Machinist union reached a tentative deal on a new four-year contract to settle the seven week strike idling production lines in Washington, Kansas and Oregon. More than 27,000 workers walked off the job on Sept. 4.
Here are the details are reported by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which is the Association of Washington Business' national affiliate for manufacturing and technology:
Boeing agreed to raise wages by a total of 15% over the life of the contract, as well as to pay bonuses totaling at least $8,000 to each worker during the first three years." Representatives from both sides had positive comments on the agreement. "Boeing and union leaders solved the job-security impasse with a compromise that will allow Boeing to expand the use of contractors to deliver aircraft components directly to assembly lines. However, once the parts enter the factories, only union workers will be allowed to handle them."
This is good news for all concerned. Hopefully, the rank and file will approve this deal so Boeing can start assembling airplanes again in Renton and Everett.
From the Washington Alliance for a Competitive Economy (WashACE)Web site, Richard Davis posted an article about how the Massachusetts High Tech Council gave state lawmakers a failing grade when it comes to competitiveness.
Tax hikes, rising health insurance costs emanating from the state-run "connector" model, and increasing unemployment costs were big contributing factors to the "F" grade. Those issues ring a bell for Washington?
Washington's minimum wage is scheduled to go from $8.07 to $8.55 per hour next January. Meanwhile, Barack Obama says if he is elected President, the minimum wage will go up to be a living wage. He wants to raise the federal minimum wage, which is set to go from $6.55 to $7.25 per hour on January 1, to $9.50 by 2011. Taking a page from Washington State, Obama wants to tie future increases to an inflationary index so there would be annual adjustments in the federal minimum wage as well.
According to census data, less than one percent of workers over 25 are earning the minimum and rather than family heads or full-time workers, they tend to be young single adults, teenagers living at home, or spouses providing a second income.
Today, politicians are blending minimum wage into a living wage. That may prove to be counterproductive and actually decrease job opportunities during these economic times especially. While everyone wants to be paid more, the question which needs to be answered: "Is continually increasing the minimum wage actually reducing jobs?"
On the 10th anniversary of the passage of I-688, Washington's minimum wage law which tied automatic wage hikes to an urban inflation index, the Governor and lawmakers ought to take a second look at what may be some unintended consequences of the state's statute. Certainly, the job market in Seattle is different than that in Clarkston, yet Washington law sets the adjustment based on wages in the urbanized Puget Sound population centers makes no accommodation for rural areas on both sides of the Cascades.
Maybe the answer would be a job paying $8 an hour for someone entering the workforce or looking to supplement family income is better than no job at all.
At its September board meeting, the Association of Washington Business voted to oppose Initiative 1029, requiring additional training for home care workers. You can read more about AWB's endorsements in the 2008 election here.
The Community Care Coalition, a collection of non-profit operators of assisted living facilities, elder care facilities adult family home operators and other groups that deliver care to the elderly and disabled, have formed opposition to the measure facing voters this fall. The initiative has received "vote no" editorials from 13 daily newspapers in Washington. The Coalition has captured them on their Web site, and you can check out the collection here.
At our Policy Summit on Sept. 25 at Semiahmoo, Gov. Chris Gregoire told AWB members that Paid Family Leave is "suspended." Apparently, the suspension hasn't lasted long. According to a Paid Family Leave advocacy group, there is a coordinated Democrat strategy to fund the paid leave program in the 2009 Legislative Session.
The Paid Family Leave program, which authorizes $250 per week for five weeks when parents give birth or adopt a child, was passed and signed by Gregoire in 2007. The problem is they haven't figured out a tax to pay for it. California and New Jersey have paid family leave programs and California's is funded through a payroll tax, primarily on workers. AWB asked the Gov. and legislature to modify Washington's law to exempt employers who provide paid leave programs. They refused. So in 2009, AWB will seek outright repeal.
Here is what the Governor and key Democrat leaders told Kristin-Rowe Finkbeiner, head of MomsRising.org. She passed on this information to legislators.
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown: "It's critically important that parents get to spend time with their newborn or newly adopted babies, and that families get to spend time with seriously ill loved ones, without fear of losing their jobs and ending in a downward economic spiral. Peope need Family Leave Insurance so they can both carry our their responsibililties to their jobs and to their families. We'll be tackling a permanent funding source in the upcoming legislative session and I fully support implementing Family Leave Insurance in our State."
Speaker of the House Frank (10- 8-08): "In a time of economic insecurity, working familes need Family Leave Insurance more than ever. The legislature has passed Family Leave Insurance and is committed to findina a long-term funding source for the premiums.
Gov. Gregoire (10/9/08): "Family Leave has been an issue that I've strongly supported over the years. We have come to realize that the Family and Medical Leave Act passed by Congress, while an important milestone in legislation to help working families, did not address the economic issues of caring for our love ones. These issues, I know, are faced by families in our state every day. That's why working closely with legislative leaders in bot the House and Seante, I supported "Family Leave Insurance" last year. As you know our economic climate has taken a dramatic turn nationally that's unfortunately affecting our state economic stability, as well as the economic stability of families. It is my hope and commitment that working with you and legislative leadership we can work on a strategy to addres funding opportunities for this imporant program."
AWB supports the objectives of those pushing for family leave, but strongly believes these are issues which can be worked out between the employer and the workers. As a example, AWB has worked with our staff in the last 20 years when nine gave birth to children and three suffered through bouts of cancer. Through our flexible leave programs, our staff was paid while on leave at the full salaries with benefits. In some cases, our staff even donated their leave to help those seriously ill.
We encourage our members to work with their employees and we believe they are. We do not believe those employers or workers covered under paid leave programs should have to subsidize those who are not or create a whole new costly bureaucratic structure to implament a one-size fits all government program.
With all apologies to Ms. Poppins, a spoonful of research helps the rhetoric go down when it comes to the national debate over health care.
When the presidential hopefuls uttered those two magic words earlier this week at Belmont University in Nashville, keyboards all over the world clattered with commentary. In a nutshell, Obama would put more decisions about health care in the hands of government. McCain, meanwhile, would opt for more choices in a competitive market retooled to favor consumers.
Under the McCain plan, consumers could purchase health insurance across state lines, allowing them to choose coverage more tailored to their individual needs at a more affordable price. Individuals and families would receive a tax credit regardless of where they work or what they earn for buying health insurance. In Washington state, this would provide critical assistance to the 600,000 uninsured in our state and would be key to getting them the insurance they need.
This is where the research part becomes necessary. Fortunately, there are good people who are paid to do just that for us:
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent comparison in this opinion piece on the debate and the discussion of the tax credits that ensued in Tuesday's debate.
The Business Roundtable issued this news release on the heels of the debate urging accuracy in the discussion of national health care plans and, specifically, the McCain plan.
Washington Post political blogger Ruth Marcus offers more analysis of the plans here. She's not a fan of the McCain plan, but she does dispel the notion that his plan "is not the ill-intentioned monstrosity of Obama's ominous portrayal."
Both Marcus and the WSJ also take great pains to disabuse people of the notion that McCain's elimination of the tax preference for employer-sponsored health care is a bad thing. Under the McCain proposal, individuals would be offered a $2,500 refundable tax credit and families would be offered a $5,000 credit. Writes Marcus:
"The Obama campaign tries to scare voters into believing that this is
a terrible deal, noting that the average family policy costs about
$12,000.
True, but if you get $12,000 in health insurance from
your employer and are in the 25 percent tax bracket, you would owe
another $3,000 in taxes. The credit would let you take $5,000 off your
overall tax bill. You come out ahead -- unless your insurance is hugely
generous, in which case it's serving to drive up everyone's health-care
costs."
Our two cents worth: choice must be a central tenet of any new health plan. As the WSJ noted:
The Democrat is merely offering Canada on the installment plan.
For more on the health care debate, don't miss the article AWB's Paul Schlienz wrote on the candidates' respective plans in the current issue of Washington Business magazine.
