Kennebunkport, Maine - 700 Peace Activists March

President Bush was in Kennebunkport, Maine on Saturday to attend a wedding. He was staying at his family's retreat.

The AP reported in the Boston Globe yesterday that that a peace march also took place in Kennebunkport on Saturday. Police Chief Joseph Bruno said some 700 people were involved, chanting and marching.

"The demonstrators sang, chanted, waved signs and even engaged in some fiddle playing to protest the war in Iraq."

One Navy veteran at the event was quoted as saying "Silence is complicity. I don't want to be complicit."

Same here.

"Shock and Awe" Remember the words. "We had to destroy the village to save it." Remember the words. The Israelis seemed to do the same thing in Lebanon.

When will we learn that total destruction that provides employment for companies like Halliburton does not win hearts and minds and is not the answer to finding peace. Military tactics using both discriminate and indiscriminate bombing that kills and maims the civilian population does not work to provide a stable base upon which to build trust and democracy.

As our experience in Iraq shows, and Lebanon shows, mass destruction and death can actually be counterproductive by increasing hatred and anger and increasing support for terrorists. There is no surer way to create a new terrorist, than by killing someone's family.

There are no easy answers to finding peace in the Middle East. But America's experience in Iraq points to a failed policy by Bush. New tactics are needed, not a rehash of failed Viet Nam era tactics. Just using more powerful or precise weapons of mass destruction ignores the social and political realities necessary to create a stable government and country.

It's time for a change. Bush has failed.

What is a Democrat?

Is Joseph I Lieberman a Democrat? Washington State Democrats often debate what it takes to be a Democrat. Within the party faithful that serve as members of legislative district organizations, the debate frequently is about whether elected Democrats and candidates need to pass some litmus test regarding supporting the party's platform.

This particularly becomes a hot issue when candidates and incumbents are up for election. The compromise has usually been to ask candidates to fill out lengthy questionnaires and ask if there are parts of the platform they don't support. In addition people are asked how long they have been a member of the Democratic Party and if they have been a member of some other party in the last 5 years. In recent years these questionnaires have been posted on line.

This degree of stringent questioning or loyalty test varies depending on how strong and large a legislative district organization is. The district I belong to is strongly democratic and so the debate continues every election year.

The controversy right now in Connecticut is over whether Lieberman should really be able to call himself a Democrat. Yesterday in fact some registered Democrats went to Lieberman's voter registration board and ask that his Democratic registration be pulled since he is now running as a Independent. The person at the Election Department said this was the first time she had ever had this request.

Tensions are running high. Senator Kerry on Sunday "blasted" Lieberman over his decision to stay in the Senate race in Connecticut. He said Lieberman is "making a Republican case" for the war in Iraq and is becoming an echo chamber for Republicans like Cheney.

Lieberman responded "I am a Democrat." and accused Kerry of positioning himself for another run for President. Lieberman noted that he voted with the Democratic positions in Congress 90% of the time.

To me what is troubling is that the Republicans are using Lieberman to push their agenda and using his situation to divert attention from Bush's and the Republican responsibility for invading Iraq.

Frankly Democrats should be angry because this is the same public shifting of media attention and responsibility for Bush's invasion of Iraq and his failures in Iraq to a squabble among Democrats that Senator Maria Cantwell felt in Washington State.

Democrats need to keep focused on the fact that Iraq is mainly a Republican issue and it is Bush, not Cantwell or Lieberman or any other Democrat that keeps us in Iraq. A few Democrats don't have the power to change the President's mind or outvote the Republican majority in Congress to turn things around.

Republicans love the fact that the media attention is focused on the Democrats disagreeing on Iraq because it takes the attention and heat off Bush and the Republicans that are responsible.

Democrats need to work to regain control of the House and Senate from Republicans, rather than fighting among themselves. They are in danger of losing focus as to who represents the real problem - Republicans that blindly supported Bush.

Walking for the Building Industry Association of Washington.

As of this week the Building Industry Association of Washington has contributed over 70% of the $256,000 being used to target voters to vote for the BIAW's two hand picked Washington State Supreme Court candidates. Giving over $180,000 to "Walking for Washington" means they are for this one effort alone contributing $90,000 each to help elect their two endorsed candidates. And they are not done.

The BIAW hates Washington State's Growth Management Act that protects our communities from urban sprawl. They feel it gets in their way of allowing developers to build whatever they want wherever they want. This year they are running two candidates, John Groen who is challenging Chief Justice Alexander and Steve Johnston who is challenging Justice Susan Owens.

The Washington State Legislature earlier this year passed campaign contribution limits after the BIAW alone spent spent more money two years ago electing James Johnson to the State Supreme Court than Johnson's opponent, Mary Kay Becker, raised in total.

The Washington State Legislature limited individual campaign contributions to candidates to $1400 in the primary and $2800 in the general. After the bill was passed but before it went into effect, all the Supreme Court candidates except Groen voluntarily abided by the limits. Groen went on a fundraising rampage, collecting over $100,000 in contributions over the limit.

The law has been in effect since June but the BIAW has chosen to ignore the spirit of the law trying to limit special interest influence in elections, by ignoring it. They feel that they can do whatever they want and are raising money independently to influence the election.

The BIAW is on a tear to buy the Washington State Supreme Court. So far they have been the pivotal power putting two of their candidates on the Court already -Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson.

The Washington State Legislature made a big mistake by not also limiting campaign contributions to the same $1400 primary, $1400 general election maximum for donations to PACS that spend independently of the official candidate's campaign committee. The contribution limits should apply to any contribution supporting or opposing a candidate whether given directly to the campaign or indirectly to a so called independent PAC.

If the purpose of contribution limitations is to limit special interest influence in elections which can overwhelm candidates opponents, the BIAW has shown the Legislature their arrogance and self righteousness. They have given both the Legislature and the voters the finger. To them money is power and fair elections are not something they abide by. Winning is everything. That is why the Legislature needs to fix the law they just passed.

Two years ago the BIAW spent hundreds of thousands of dollars helping Republican Rob McKenna get elected Washington State Attorney General. On election night McKenna personally thanked the BIAW even though they were supposibly independent expenditures.

Meanwhile voters this year need to learn about the candidates running for State Supreme Court. Voters need to vote for incumbent Gerry Alexander over John Groen in the primary. They need to vote for Susan Owens over Steve Johnson. The third Supreme Court race is incumbent Tom Chambers, who is also being opposed by an unqualified so called developers rights advocate Jeanette Burrage.

Alexander's and Chambers' race will be decided in the Sept 19th Primary because they only have one opponent .State law says that for judges whoever gets the majority in the primary wins. This is another law that the Legislature needs to fix because it doesn't make sense to have State Supreme Court races decided by primary voters rather than general election voters.

Cantwell and Murray Almost Identical Say Public Interest Groups

Washington State Senators Cantwell and Murray could almost be identical twins if you look at how interest groups rate them. Project Vote Smart has lots and lots of information on our two Senators and one of the areas they do a great job on is a compilation of interest group ratings.

When you check the rating for Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray you won't find a lot of differences. In fact you'll find a lot of identical ratings by groups.

A lot of discussion of Senator Cantwell has been on the Iraq War. It is important to also look at how interest groups rate her on other issues like education, environment, civil rights, labor and peace. The comparison below is between Cantwell and Murray.

Before you decide to sit this election out, consider what type of ratings you would expect a Senator Mike McGavick to get from these same groups. Maybe you'll decide it's time to really help get Maria re-elected.

Organization .........................................Cantwell .....................Murray

NARAL ProChoice 2005............................100 ........................... 75

Nat Right to Life 2005 .................................0..............................0

Nat. Assoc of Wheat Growers 2005 ...........100 ..........................100

Humane Society of US 2005 ............/.........100 ..........................80

Nat Trust for Historic Preservation ............100 .........................100

Americans for Tax Reform 2005 ..................25 ...........................15

US Chamber of Commerce 2005...................56 ..........................44

Am Civil Liberties Union ..............................78 ..........................78

Nat Assoc for Adv of Colored People 2005....95 ...........................90

Human Rights Campaign 2003-2004 ..........88 ..........................88

Leadership Council on Civil Rights ................100 ......................100

Eagle Forum 2005...........................................0 ...........................0

American Conservative Union .........................0 ...........................0

Christian Coalition 2004 .................................0 ...........................0

National Education Ass 2005 .........................100 ......................100

American Wilderness Coalition 2005 .............100 ......................100

League of Conservation Voters 2005 ..............90 .........................95

Childrens Defense Fund 2005 .........................89 .........................100

Family Research Council 2004 ........................0 ............................14

Peace Action 2005 .........................................89 ...........................89

Peace PAC 2005 ..............................................100 ........................100

Am Assoc of Univ Women 2005 ......................100 .........................83

Nat Org for Women 2005 ...............................100 .........................75

US PIRG 2005 .................................................95 ..........................100

Gun Owners of America 2005 ............................0 ..............................0

Brady Camp to Prevent Gun Violence 2003 ........100 ........................90

Am Public Health Assoc .....................................90 .........................90

Service Employees Int Union ..............................85 .........................85

AFL-CIO ............................................................79 ..........................86

Americans for Democratic Action 2005 .............95 ..........................95

Alliance for Retired Americans ...........................100 .......................100

Disabled American Vets 2005 .............................92 ..........................92

Bread for the World 2003/2004 ........................100 ........................100

There are actually some areas, like women's groups, that Cantwell seems to rate as more liberal than Murray. In the end though, the differences are probably single vote differences on an interest group's list. As you can see, Senator Cantwell's and Senator Murray's interest group ratings very similar.

Washington State Democratic and public interest groups' values and voting interests have been well represented in Congress by Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray. Washington State has a lot to lose if we don't re-elect Senator Cantwell this year.

You can support Maria's campaign by going to http://www.cantwell.com/ and volunteering or making a donation today.

Time to Change Washington's Law on Judicial Races

In an unusual quirk of Washington State law, most judicial candidates, including those for Washington State Supreme Court, win their election if they win the majority of the votes in the primary.

This means that at least two and maybe three of the Washington State Supreme Court races this year could be decided in the primary on Sept. 19th.

In his article in the Seattle PI yesterday even Seattle reporter Joel Connelly doesn't convey clearly what is going to happen in the September 19, 2006 primary.

He says "Each race could be decided in the September primary, if one candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote."

When there are only 2 candidates in 2 of the 3 races, it’s pretty hard to understand how one will not get a majority of the votes! At least two and maybe three of the State Supreme Court races will be decided in the primary.

The two races that definitely will be decided on Sept 19th are those between:

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander versus John Groen

Justice Tom Chambers versus Jeanette Burrage

Even Justice Susan Owen's race could be over if the BIAW's candidate, Steve Johnson, gets a majority vote because of Reed’s decision to label him as an attorney, state senator with no occupation behind Owens name on the ballot. Reed's added identification is unfair to the other 3 candidates in this race who don't get any additional description.

I did a post on this on Tuesday
http://www.majorityrules.org/blog/2006/08/bad-decision-by-washington-state.html

Washington State law says that if a judicial candidate gets a majority vote in the primary, they win. The election is over. This is a bad law and needs to be changed because the primary vote is usually more conservative and a lot fewer voters vote. It is not as representative of the general voting population.

Next time you speak to your state legislators ask them to change the law so that judicial races are decided in the general election, not the primary.

And Now for the Rest of the Story by Mike McGavick.

"It's part of the crap you can expect from the party of Karl Rove.It's totally taken out of context." That was my wife's reaction to hearing Republican Mike McGavick's new radio ad on KIRO this morning. I couldn't have said it better.

In the radio ad McGavick accuses Senator Maria Cantwell of voting against this state's soon to expire sales tax deduction on our Federal income tax. He basically accuses her of stealing a $550 sales tax deduction from Washington families. It's desperation politics time I guess.

As the Seattle PI notes this morning in an editorial, the real vote was also on reducing the minimum wage for tip workers in this state and reducing the Federal estate tax on multimillionaires. But McGavick fails to mention this saying only that "she disagreed with parts of the bill". In Washington State thousands of restaurant workers and others that rely on tips to get by, would have seen a real reduction in their actual take home pay as they saw their minimum wage go down under one of the "parts" of this bill.

My analogy of McGavick's ad is, its like someone calling to say your son is coming home from the war, but neglects to say he is also dead. If this is the type of Senator that McGavick will be, then we can expect he will never tell us the full story. We can't expect him to tell us the truth as a Senator because he can't do it now. By the way, he did say that he approved the ad.

McGavick claims Cantwell's vote (against decreasing the minimum wage for thousands of Washington State workers) was part of the partisan nonsense that causes people to vote against families of your own state.

Well you have that right Mike. The partisan Republican run Congress, that does not consult with the Democrats, is not interested in helping working families or they would have run the sales tax deduction as a separate bill. One also might wonder why they didn't make the sales tax deduction permanent in the first place. Likewise they could have run increasing the minimum wage as a separate bill and allowed for amendments. They were previously unable to pass the inhertiance tax bill on its own. And Republicans have repeatedly stopped any vote on the minimum wage year after year.

Why are they having to vote on it again except for partisan Republican advantage to do things like helping the National Restaurant Association lower what their workers make or helping their wealthy patron donors avoid paying tax on appreciated property or stocks by allowing them to transfer it tax free when someone dies.

If you really want to avoid further partisan Republican steamrolling over American families and voters, then do as McGavick suggests. Lets end this one party rule and boot the Republicans out of Congress. It time to get back to the business of America and really help families with education, health care and jobs that pay a living wage, rather than worrying about things like whether "under God" is in our Pledge of Allegiance.

McGavick is right on ending strident partisanship in Congress. However electing another Republican to the Senate is not the way to do it.

Bad Decision by Washington State Secretary of State Reed

Will the Washington State Supreme Court be renamed the Johnson Supreme Court? Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed seems intent on helping make that happen.

Washington State Supreme Court Position #2 is currently held by Susan Owens, who was first elected in 2000. The position is up for election again this year and she has 4 challengers.

Two of the challengers are attorneys named Richard Smith and Norman J Ericson.

The other two challengers are both named Johnson. Michael Johnson, a Seattle attorney and Stephen Johnson who is an attorney from Kent and also a Washington State Legislator. He is also the hand picked favorite of the BIAW or Building Industry Association of Washington.

Note - The BIAW is trying to pack the court with justices who support weakening growth management and zoning laws in Washington State. They previously were the biggest spenders in helping elect Richard Saunders and James Johnson to the Washington State Supreme Court. In electing James Johnson 2 years ago, they alone spent more money than Mary Kay Becker, a judge in Whatcom County, raised in total.

Anyway Sam Reed, rather than allowing voters to choose between a Michael, Stephen, Richard, Norman and Susan, has decided your choice should be between 2 Johnsons who are attorneys, with one also being a state senator and 3 other candidates who appear not to be attorneys.

His reason for adding occupation is that two candidates with the same last name might confuse voters. Frankly choosing among most judicial candidates is confusing to most voters since voters know so little about them. But Reed has decided to add occupations to help distinguish between the Johnson's. In doing so he gives an advantage to the Johnson's.

Below is Reed's prejudical ballot listing which favor the Johnsons:

Michael Johnson, attorney
Stephen Johnson, attorney/state senator
Richard Smith
Norman J Ericson
Susan Owens

The most glaring problem - all 5 candidates are attorneys! Reed's listing makes it look like only 2 of the candidates are attorneys. And by luck of the draw they are also listed at the top of the ballot.

Poor Susan Owens - she is both an attorney and current Supreme Court Justice but she is discriminated against by not having her occupation listed. A state senator gets listed but not a Supreme Court Justice?

If I were with the Owens campaign I would consider challenging the unfair advantage Reed'd decision gives the Johnson's.

One better unbiased way to distinguish betwwen all the candidates might have been to add their home city. In this case the ballot would have looked like this:

Michael Johnson, Seattle
Stephen Johnson, Kent
Richard Smith, Seattle
Norman J Ericson, Olympia
Susan Owens, Olympia

There are already 2 Johnsons on the Washington State Supreme Court. I am not aware that when they sign opinions that they list some prior occupation to distinguish between them. Do you know who the current two Johnsons are and can you tell them apart? (Answer Charles and James)

What a mess it would be with three Johnsons on the court.

My suggestion - keep the names straight by not voting for any more Johnsons.

I suggest you support the incumbent Supreme Court Justice - Susan B Owens.

The Big Initiative Donors in Washington State

Not surprising, big donors are once again dominating initiative campaigns in Washington state this year. See Initiative reports from PDC.

With his August 8, 2006 donation of another $150,000, real estate developer Martin Selig has now given a whopping $807,500 to the Initiative 920 campaign to abolish Washington State's estate tax.

Coming in second is the married couple of Michael and Phyllis Dunmire of Woodinville who have been almost singlehandedly paying for Tim Eyman's Halloween Madness at the Secretary of State's office in Olympia. They contributed $357,500 supporting his latest attempt to reduce transportation funding - Initiative 917. The outcome of that effort still remains in doubt as every signature is being checked on the petitions he filed.

Coming in third is the Libertarian moneybags of numerous term limits, tax cutting measures and developer's rights initiatives across the country. Americans for Limited Government, which is not based in Washington State but in Illinois, gave $200,000 to help collect signatures for Initiative 933 - the Farm Bureau's effort to eliminate zoning and growth management controls that protect individual homeowners. The measure is best called a Developers Rights Initiative since they are the main beneficiaries.

The person behind Americans for Limited Government is Howard Rich. He is a billionaire real estate developer who lives in New York. Expect to see more money from him in the I-933 campaign. Americans for Limited Government gave some $827,000 to AZHope to collect signatures in an effort to put a developer's rights initiative on the Arizona ballot this November.

Oil Companies Taking America for a Ride!

We in Washington State like to think we are pretty smart. So do most Americans. Then why is it that most Americans can't see that the oil companies consider us suckers?

Maybe it's because most people can't see the simple relationship between cause and effect. Record gas prices. Record oil company profits. In a free market economy, oil companies are free to charge whatever they want. And that is what they are doing.

What the oil companies are doing is reminiscent of what ENRON did in raising the price of electricity, causing millions of homeowners and businesses to pay more for the same amount of electricity. Was there an energy crisis? Yes and no. The market was manipulated and artificial shortages were created. An illusion of energy shortages was created.

The average consumer had little recourse but to pay higher electricity bills because they were locked into an electrical grid to meet their basic needs. Electricity is basically a monopoly because you can't go out in most cases and shop for an electric company like you now can for a cell phone company. And any semblance of consumer protection is more a mirage than reality.

As Consortiumnews.org notes

"Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity in California at a time when Enron was artificially driving up the price of electricity by manipulating supply. Bush"s resistance to price caps bought Enron extra time to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars from California"s consumers."

The same thing is happening now regarding gas prices with the Republicans in Congress and Bush. They are supporting the oil industry that has a virtual monopoly on energy. Our economy is run on oil and we are addicted to oil. A transportation system dependent on individual cars and trucks, rather than adequate public transit, dictates a continued use of a commodity controlled by a few companies.

Under Bush and the Republicans, there is no regulation of the oil industry because it is contrary to their free market economy beliefs and against their patrons who put them into office. They say there is no price gouging for gasoline because the oil companies are free to charge as much as they want, as long as consumers are willing to pay. So far consumers have continued to pay. Unfortunately there are no alternatives for most people..

Oil companies have found that Americans are pretty gullible. Bush's never ending war on "terrorism" is right out of George Orwell's 1984. Iraq and terrorism get blamed for contributing to higher gas prices.

But many Americans now see that our invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Bush has no plan to end or win the war. He hopes that the continuing war will make those who started it seem legitimate, as terrorist actions continue. Unfortunately the Iraq War has fostered increased recruitment and training for new terrorists. It has not made us any more energy independent or secure.

Would we be in Iraq if not for oil? Would we be in the Middle East if not for oil? Is the tradeoff worth it, oil for increasing terrorist motivation and training.

The bottom line is really about oil and profits, while Bush and Rove insist otherwise. America's problem is that oilmen in the White House and Congress, who are running our country, have no incentive to find real alternatives to oil, especially when they can rack up record profits. The Iraq War has become an unfortunate consequence of oilmen seeking to keep reaping outrageous profit from an economy dependent on oil.

Bush and his oilmen have no incentive to increase the mileage requirements for cars and trucks. They have no incentives to start a serious switch to energy independence and end our addiction to oil. They have made us the hostages in the process. Why should they care as long as we pay the higher prices?

Unfortunately these same oil companies , in racking up record profits, are taking the nickels and dimes and quarters of America's low income and minimum wage workers to fuel their profits and growth. They are producing hardship for middle income families in paying bills and providing for heath care and education for their children. And the Iraq War is draining our society of money for basic human needs. The price we are actually paying for a free market economy dependent on oil is horrendous.

And what are the oil companies now doing? They are buying up alternative energy companies and building their own subsidiaries so they can continue their monopoly of America's energy resources - to continue to reap as many profits as they can from selling energy to America's citizens.

What American consumer's need to think about is why they would think that the oil companies who seem to have no problem taking obscene profits now, and not worrying about hurting the lives of average citizens, are going to be any different with any other energy sources they might own in the future.

Americans really need to wake up and rally around ending our addiction to oil and working not just for energy independence from foreign sources , but also energy independence from price gouging energy conglomerates. Americans need to demand much more fuel efficient cars, more decentralized small sources of energy from wind and solar, and increased energy efficiency. These actions will increase America's security and independence.

This isn't going to happen as long as oilmen run the White House and Republicans control the House and the Senate. Our only hope is to boot the oil loving Republicans out of office and put Democrats in control. And then we will have to make sure they do the right thing for America.

New Poll Says Goldmark can win 5th Congressional District Seat!

Peter Goldmark is the dark horse Democratic candidate charging ahead in Washington State's 5th Congressional District. A new poll by Lake Research Partners may be a surprise to some but not to those who have met Peter. It says Goldmark can win the 5th Congressional District Seat.

Posted yesterday on Daily Kos by peagreen and posted today on Washblog by switzerblog is part of the summary of Goldmark's recent poll that confirms what I have long been saying. Peter Goldmark can win the 5th Congressional District in Washington. He can defeat Cathy McMorris.

He is the dark horse candidate charging ahead. But he needs our help. Read below and then click on ActBlue today to make a contribution today.

Here's the poll:

*In the initial ballot, incumbent McMorris receives less than a majority of the vote against Goldmark despite a vast name recognition advantage. After both candidates get their messages out, Goldmark pulls into a virtual tie with McMorris--37% for Goldmark to 39% for McMorris.

*Bush's favorability rating is only 44% (very or somewhat favorable) versus 53% (very or somewhat unfavorable) with a plurality (42%) giving him a very unfavorable rating, making Bush a liability for McMorris in the district.

*McMorris' own job performance rating is low. Just 44% rate McMorris' job rating as good or excellent versus 47% who say it is just fair or poor, for a net negative job performance rating (-3%).

*McMorris has certainly not sealed the deal on her reelection, as just 38% are ready to re-elect her. The remaining 62% of the electorate would consider voting for someone else (24%), vote to replace McMorris (20%), or aren't sure (18%). These findings are based on 400 completed interviews with a random sample of likely November 2006 voters. Interviews were conducted from July 20-23, 2006. Sampling error is +/- 4.9%.

It's key of course for Goldmark to get his message out. That's why it's important that you contribute today to help him get his message out. There is nothing worse that on election day to say, "If only we had helped a little more, Goldmark would have won." You can do something today.

We know now that he can win. Go to his campaign website at Vote Peter Goldmark to read more about his campaign. Contribute at MajorityRulesBlog ActBlue now.

Senator Cantwell Opposes Republican's Attempt to Cut Washington's Minimum Wage!

Thank you Senator Cantwell for speaking out against the phony hypocritical tactics of the Republicans in Congress regarding their so called minimum wage increase.

In a guest post on the Northwest Progressive Institute's blog Cantwell said:

"I cannot support what amounts to a minimum wage penalty for over 122,000 Washington minimum wage earners. Why would the federal government work to lower the maximum wage rather than setting a minimum protection?

I am not buying this cynical Republican ploy."

Workers and families not just in Washington State, but also in California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Alaska, would actually see a decrease in their already low wages because of the so called tip provision.

But in a sop to the Restaurant Industry, the proposed legislation in Congress does not just affect these seven states. It would put into law for all states the use of tips to pay the minimum wage. The new Federal statute would preempt any future action by other states to raise state minimum wages in the future, without including tips in calculating the minimum wage base.

Republicans in the same bill are also pushing to further cut estate taxes for multimillionaires. The estate tax is frequently on property and stocks that have appreciated in value. Eliminating the estate tax on this property lets this appreciated value escape taxation when it is passed on to the next generation.

Loss of funds from the estate tax will further limit the ability of the Federal Government to provide a safety net for our country’s most needy families. This is too great a cost to trade off for a minimum wage increase that actually cuts the wages for many present working families.

Again thanks Senator Cantwell for speaking out and helping to clarify what the Republicans are actually proposing!

This is another reason why Senator Cantwell deserves our help in getting re-elected. As I was driving home today I heard on the radio that McGavick says he supports this legislation.

You can make a donation to support Senator Cantwell's re-election by clicking here on the MajortiyRulesBlog ActBlue link. All monies will go to the Cantwell campaign.

You can also help the campiagn in other ways by going to the website for the Cantwell campaign.

It Should be an Easy Vote for Cantwell and Murray!

Would a true blue Democrat vote to cut wages below the current minimum wage for workers in Washington State? The Republicans in the US House of Representatives have prepared a Faustian bargain for Democratic Senators in Washington State and 6 other states with their just passed H.B. 5970. While the bill purports to raise the minimum wage, for many workers in Washington State it does the opposite.

We posted on this bill yesterday noting that Washington State's 3 Republican Congressman (Reichert, McMorris and Hastings) voted for H.B. 5970. On the surface it seems to raise the minimum wage over 3 years but the details say otherwise for many workers in Washington State.

As Rose Eisenbrey of Counterpunch notes:

"The Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006, H.R. 5970, which passed the House on July 29, raises the minimum wage for most employees. But for many employees in seven states, H.R. 5970 means a wage cut. Section 402 of the bill strikes down state laws that require employers to pay a full minimum wage without relying on tips from customers to reach the minimum level.1 States that have those laws will see the minimum wage for tipped employees fall as much as $5.50 per hour.

Seven states-Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington-exclude, in the words of H.R. 5970, " all of a tipped employee's tips from being considered as wages in determining if such tipped employee has been paid the applicable minimum wage rate." According to Section 402, therefore, the "minimum wage rate provisions" of those state laws may not be enforced "with respect to tipped employees." Tipped employees (defined as any employee who earns more than $30 per month in tips) would be left without any minimum wage protection under state law in those seven states.

In most cases, the tipped employees would be subject to the federal minimum wage law, which allows employers to pay as little as $2.13 an hour and to rely on customers' tips to make up the rest of the $5.15 minimum wage. This is known as a "tip credit." Thus, in Washington, tipped employees would see their minimum wage cut from its current $7.63 an hour (plus tips) to $5.15 an hour (including tips). Employers would see their minimum wage obligation to tipped employees fall by $5.50 an hour-from $7.63 an hour to $2.13 an hour (assuming $3.02 in customer tips). For example, an employee who is currently paid the state minimum age of $7.63 an hour and receives $3.02 in tips earns a total of $10.65 per hour. Under the House-passed bill, the employer would be permitted to pay only $2.13 an hour and count the customers' tips to make up the rest of the $5.15 federal minimum wage. The employee would lose $5.50 per hour in pay."

The bill also raises the tax exemption on estate taxes to $5 million per person. Stashed away in the bill is a provision to keep the sales tax exemption on Federal income taxes and provisions to aid timber companies.

While some of the provisions in this bill might tempt some to support it, it is a lose/lose for Washington State voters and workers. We already have the highest minimum wage in the country at $7.63 an hour, so we gain nothing here. As noted above, Washington workers actually lose.ose.

And loss of the estate tax dollars means a huge cut in Federal tax dollars for services that benefit lower income people. The estate tax affects a few thousand people who are millionaires.

The vote should be an easy one for Cantwell and Murray. Whatever benefits are in the bill are more than offset by lowering the minimum hourly wage for many Washington workers.

U.S. Representatives Reichert, McMorris, and Hastings vote to cut Washington's Minimum Wage

Our three Washington State Republican Representatives in Congress just voted to cut the minimum wage in 7 states, including Washington.

In an editorial today, the Seattle PI called the Republican House of Representatives a "Reverse Robin Hood" in passing a new law that "would rob wages from the poor to benefit the rich"

Just before Congress left for its August recess the House approved a bill to raise the the national minimum wage to $7.25 an hour - coupling it with increased cuts in the estate tax.

But as the PI notes:

"For workers in seven states -- including Washington -- the bill actually is a pay cut for many employees because it requires that tips now be calculated into the minimum wage. Current state law excludes tips.
The bill "is the first time in history that the federal government has acted to put a ceiling on minimum wage levels, rather than establishing a national floor from which the states can make improvements," says Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute.

The new federal law would mandate that the minimum wage be as little as $2.13 for workers who get tips, calling it a "tip credit." Folks who earn minimum wage are now paid $7.63 an hour in Washington state -- plus tips. Thus the new law could reduce the hourly wage as much as $5.50 an hour. Washington Republican Reps. Dave Reichert, Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings voted yea -- and against current state law."

The New York Times yesterday editorialiized on the trading of a minimum wage increase for the estate tax cuts as "Fooling the Voters" and called it "an attempt at extorsion."

"...a $2.10 an hour increase in the minimum wage, to be phased in over three years; and a multibillion-dollar estate-tax cut. That's the deal House Republicans are really offering a few more dollars for 6.6 million working Americans; billions more for some 8,000 of the wealthiest families."

"There is no way to justify providing yet another enormous tax shelter to the nation'’s wealthiest heirs in the face of huge budget deficits, growing income inequality and looming government obligations for Social Security and Medicare

The Washington Post likewise noted what was at stake here:

"Appended to the minimum wage hike that the vast majority of them opposed was a provision genuinely dear to their hearts: a cut in the estate tax that chiefly benefits the super-rich and that will reduce government revenue over the next decade, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by $753 billion. The shortfall could well lead to offsetting cuts in programs that benefit the same working poor that the minimum-wage increase would help. But who cares about the poor? The whole point of the exercise was to come up with a bill that might force some Democrats to vote for an estate tax cut they would otherwise oppose, and enable Republicans to claim they weren't really the Dickensian grotesques that many of them in fact are.

Which may be why the Republicans' midnight orations in favor of raising the wage bore minimal resemblance to, say, the Sermon on the Mount. Their tone was best captured by Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp, a Mayberry Machiavelli if ever there was one, who could not restrain himself from telling House Democrats, "You have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight.

Wamp's taunt can serve as the credo for this entire Republican Congress, which legislates only when, and because, it can outfox the Democrats. It is the credo of the Bush administration as well, which views even its signature policy -- its war on terrorism -- as its foremost wedge issue against the Democrats. Combine this hyper-partisan ethos with a far-right ideology that sees no role for the government even as our corporate welfare state crumbles and our planet turns to toast, and you get a more do-nothing government than Harry Truman could have even imagined."

I particularly liked the part about being outfoxed. Haven't I heard something like that recently from Eyman's cronie when he called the press to a press conference on turning in the anti-discrimination referendum but was really promoting his anti-transportation Initiative 917. The press didn't like that.

No one likes to be toyed with and made fun of. The American public doesn't either. Congress has serious business to do to attend to the needs of America. Republicans are enjoying playing games and avoiding big issues. They would rather vote on the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance than try to figure out how to end the war in Iraq. They would rather play games than increase fuel efficiency standards for cars or consider other ways to reduce energy demand.

Come November, voters will remember the Republican machine helping the superrich and corporate America while ignoring health care and education. Republicans continue to show their true colors. Voters only need to open their eyes.

Two of Three Washington State Supreme Court Races to be Decided in Primary!

Washington State primary voters on Sept 19, 2006 will decide at least two of the three Washington State Supreme Court races this year. Washington State has this odd law. For most judicial races, if someone wins a majority in the primary, they win the election. There is no general election vote.

According to the official state webpage of Washington Courts:

"In most instances, a judicial candidate who is unopposed or who receives more than half of the votes in a primary election is thereby elected to the position--he or she does not have to run in the November general election. But if there are three or more candidates, and no one wins more than half the votes cast, the two with the most votes must face each other in the November general election." (The exception is some district court races.)

In two of the three Washington State's Supreme Court races this year only two candidates filed. That means that who wins these two seats will be decided by primary voters on Sept 19, 2006. The third race has 5 candidates but if anyone receives a majority in the primary, this election is also over.

The two races that will be decided in the primary are for position #8 between incumbent Gerry L Alexander and John Groen; and for position #9 between incumbent Tom Chambers and Jeanette Burrage.


State Supreme Court Justice Position #8

Gerry L Alexander is currently the Washington State Supreme Court's Chief Justice, having twice been elected to this position by his peers. Justice Alexander was first elected to the state's Supreme Court in 1994 and was reelected by Washington voters in 2000. From 1973 to 1984 he was a Superior Court Judge. He served on the Court of Appeals from 1985 to 1994.

John Groen is the candidate recruited by the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) to run against Alexander. It is part of their continued effort to stack the state Supreme Court with so called "property rights advocates" who oppose growth management. While Groen has argued cases before the Supreme Court, he has never been a judge in any of Washington's lower courts.

Groen was the only judicial candidate to ignore the spirit of the campaign contribution law passed by the Washington State Legislature earlier this year.

While other candidates, including his opponent, chose to abide by the new limits before they went into effect, Groen collected some $128,000 that was over the contribution limit of $2800 for the primary and general election.

(Actually now with filing ended, because the primary will decide this election, candidates in this race will only be able to accept $1400 per contributor, as of the date the law went into effect. The same goes for position #9.)

State Supreme Court Justice Position #9

Tom Chambers is an incumbent Supreme Court Justice, first elected in 2000. He was past President of the Washington State Bar Association and the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association. He has written over 100 articles and has been active in community organizations.

Jeanette Burrage was the executive director for 5 years of the conservative NW Legal Foundation which pushed so called "property rights" issues. She was involved in drafting Referendum 48 to limit growth management and zoning . Voters decisely defeated R-48. Initiative 933 this year is another incarnation of this same attempt to gut growth management by pushing a "pay or waive" proposal on growth management.

Burrage ran previously for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. She served one term as a King County Superior Court Judge but lost the next election. The King County Bar Association in the past has rated her as "unqualified". You can read more about her in a recent comment thread on Postman on Politics.


State Supreme Court Justice Position #8

Five candidates are running for this position.

Justice Susan Owens is the incumbent. She ran and won her seat in 2000. Prior to that, she was a District Court Judge in Western Clallam County for 17 years. For 5 years she as the Quileute Tribe's Chief Judge and for 7 years the Chief Judge of the Lower Elwa S'Klallan Tribe.

Until filing week, Steve Johnson, the candidate recruited by the BIAW, was her chief opponent. By the end of filing last week, three other candidates filed for this seat; Michael Johnson, Richard Smith and Norm Erickson.

If any one of these candidates receives a majority in the primary vote, they will win the election on Sept 19th, otherwise the top two vote getters will appear on the November General Election ballot..

The wild card in these races will be the BIAW's free spending politics to win more seats on the Supreme Court at any cost. Unfortunately the new campaign contribution limitations law to limit contributions in judicial races has a significant loophole. It does not limit contributions to so called independent PAC's.

This loophole was exploited in 2004 when the BIAW spent lavishly "independently" to help elect Rob McKenna as Washington State's Attorney General.

Also previously the BIAW spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help elect two other members to the State Supreme Court, Richard Saunders and Jim Johnson. When there were no contribution limits on judicial races , a lot of this was given directly to the campaigns.

As noted in the PI: In 2004, the BIAW and its affiliates helped elect Jim Johnson to the Supreme Court by pouring more than $225,000 into his campaign. Johnson outspent his opponent more than 3 to 1 and on the court has been a reliable defender of property rights -- a key issue for the home builders.

Again this year large amounts of money are being spent independently by PACs run by the BIAW. This year they are running an independent PAC called Walking for Washington.

As the Seattle PI noted: The Building Industry Association of Washington, or BIAW, which promotes a conservative, pro-property-rights, anti-regulation political agenda, is by far the biggest donor -- at least $121,048 so far this year -- to Walking for Washington. The program is run out of BIAW headquarters in Olympia by the builders' political director, Elliot Swaney.

Walking for Washington is going door to door, identifying voters and handing out literature supporting Groen and Steve Johnson.

Voters who want to support the current Supreme Court Justices can go to their websites to read more about their campaigns and make donations to help offset the money of the BIAW.

Gerry Alexander

Tom Chambers

Susan Owens