Washington State Minimum Wage Still Highest in Country

On January 1, 2008 Washington State's minimum wage will increase 14 cents to $8.07/hour. We will still be the highest in the nation.

California's minimum wage will increase 50 cents to $8.00/hour. California will share second place with Massachusetts whose minimum wage is also rising to $8.00/hour.

Oregon comes in fourth - their minimum wage will go from $7.80 to $7.95 on Jan 1, 2008. Oregon's minimum wage law was passed by voters as Measure 25 in 2002.

Earlier this year the Oregon Center for Public Policy released a study entitled "Job Growth Not Dampened by Minimum Wage Increases." They noted that "... minimum wage cost-of-living adjustments have not led to the dire consequences predicted by the farm and restaurant industries that opposed pegging the minimum wage to inflation. "

Montana voters in 2006 also passed a minimum wage initiative like Washington's that included the yearly increase based on the Consumer Price Index. Montana's minimum wage will go up 10 cents to $6.25/hour in 2008.

Washington State's minimum wage is adjusted each year based on increases in the Federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The State Department of Labor and Industries adjusts the wage level based on a one year period ending August 31st . The adjusted wage goes into effect the following January 1st.

The wage adjustment takes place each year because in 1998 Washington voters passed Initiative 688. with a 66% yes vote. The initiative is fairly brief but it was the first in the nation to require that the minimum wage be increased each year to reflect any increase in inflation.

The initiative was a case study in how the initiative process can be used by progressives to both win policy issues with lasting impact and to aid progressive candidates. In an analysis of the campaign done after the election by the Economic Opportunity Institute they noted that:

"The minimum wage issue helped to define the policy debate of the 1998 elections. It did so by adding a progressive, populist, broadbased, and majoritarian issue about economic security to the ballot.
The minimum wage initiative contest drew the most votes (total votes: 1,904,205: yes-1,259,456, no-644,749) of all the ballot issues and candidate contests in the election, including the U.S. Senate race. The pro-initiative vote was the highest vote-getter for all candidates and issues, outdistancing Senator Murray’s vote by 156,000 votes and the next highest vote for a statewide initiative by 137,000 votes.
The initiative created a draw for voters. Polling indicated that turnout may have increased by as much as four percentage points, thanks to the minimum wage initiative. That is, when people found out that the minimum wage initiative was on the ballot, the turnout of voters increased by 4%. This was even more pronounced among voters with poor voting histories, who accounted for 52% of the drop-off voters who were moved by this issue.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted in its lead editorial on November 5: “Murray’s better-than-expected showing may have been boosted by the presence on the ballot of Initiative 688, which raised the state’s minimum wage and made Washington the first state to link future minimum wage increases to inflation. That initiative doubtless produced an extra measure of voters who line up in Murray’s camp….The initiative passed with a higher approval rating, 67%, than any other statewide issue.”
The Democrats unexpectedly won 50% of the contests for the state House of Representatives, picking up 8 seats, moving from a 57-41 minority to a 49-49 tie, while the State Senate switched from a 26-23 Republican majority to a 27-22 Democratic majority. Of the contested seats, 4 seats were won with less than 2 percentage points separating the Democrat from the Republican, 1 seat was won with a margin under 3 percentage points, and 1 seat was won with a margin of less than 5 percentage points. We attribute these victory margins to the draw of the minimum wage initiative. "

Previously Washington State's minimum wage was held hostage by business interests and state legislators that refused to act to raise the minimum wage to reflect inflation. Without this yearly adjustment workers saw the minimum lose purchasing power each year the Washington State Legislature didn't act.

A 2004 study by Marilyn Watkins of the Economic Opportunity Institute noted that even with the passage of I-688 Washington new minimum wage had not kept pace with inflation when one considered that in 1968 Washington's minimum wage was $1.80/hour. In 2004 when Washington State's minimum wage was $7.16 she calculated that if it had kept pace with inflation since 1968 it should have been $8.40.

Based on the inflation increase between 2004 and 2008 I calculated that Washington State's 2008 minimum wage would have to be $9.47 instead of $8.07 if we had kept pace with the minimum wage in 1968.

Unfortunately the recently passed Federal increase in the minimum wage, after 10 years with no increase, did not include the annual adjustment requirement based on inflation that Washington State initiated. Including an inflation increase adjustment each year must be a priority in the next minimum wage increase Congress enacts.

It is ridiculous to have to repeatedly fight the same battle year after year in Congress just to have the minimum wage keep pace with inflation. Minimum wage workers deserve better that getting a raise every 10 years which is how long Republicans prevented the last increase from occurring.

At least the takeover by Congress by the Democrats allowed the increase this year. Despite those that say Congress isn't doing anything, they are doing something. If the Republicans were still in control there would not have been any increase in the Federal minimum wage this year. But you probably would have seen more tax loopholes and tax breaks for the very wealthy.

There is a basic difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and the minimum wage struggles in Congress demonstrate it. Democrats support helping those that need help on the lower income levels. Republicans support helping the millionaires by giving tax breaks that mostly benefit the very wealthy. Such efforts have lead to the increasing income disparity between the rich and the poor that divides America more and more.

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated in Pakistan

Another sad day - when the rule of the gun and the bomb silence a voice for democracy. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was shot and killed while leaving a political rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. A bomb also exploded killing another 20 people.

Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October as the opposition leader to President Prez Musarraf. She survived an assassination attempt then that killed 140 others.

You can read various reactions of the Us Presidential candidates at The Page and Politico as well as at CNN which includes both Democratic and Republican responses.

The UN Security Council unanimously condemned the assassination. Leaders of many nations around the world joined in voicing outrage.

The future of democracy in Pakistan is in jeopardy. We can only hope that calm prevails and a peaceful solution is reached for Pakistan's future that supports democracy.

Cheney Behind Efforts to Kill Washington and California Clean Car Laws

A number of news sources now point to the fact that Dick Cheney was heavily involved in the EPA's recent decision to try to void California's, Washington's and 15 other state's attempts to enact Clean Car Legislation to restrict car emissions.

Last Thursday from Los Angeles Times 12/20/2007

"Johnson said California's request was unlike others that had been granted by his agency that covered "pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality."
He said the EPA acted after he and his staff reviewed more than 100,000 written comments and "thousands of pages of technical and scientific documentation."
Asked if there was White House influence, Johnson said, "My decision was an independent decision."

Last Friday from Los Angeles Times 12/21/2007

"The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday."California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."" ...

...three sources said, Johnson cut off any consultation with his technical staff for the last month and made his decision before having them write the formal, legal justification for it. "It's very highly unusual," said one source with close ties to the agency.Normally the technical staff would be part of the final decision-making process, including briefing the administrator and writing the formal legal document before his decision. In this case, the briefings were done, but the formal finding has yet to be drafted. ...

Some staff members believe Johnson made his decision after auto executives met with Vice President Dick Cheney and after a Chrysler executive delivered a letter to the White House outlining why neither California nor the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases, among other reasons. The Detroit News reported Wednesday that chief executives of Ford and Chrysler met with Cheney last month."Clearly the White House said, 'We're going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we're done, the deal is done,' " said one staffer."

Detroit News November 2, 2007:

Vice President Dick Cheney met with the CEOs of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC in recent days in the wake of a push on Capitol Hill for dramatically higher fuel economy requirements.
Cheney met Wednesday with Chrysler Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli and on Oct. 24 with Ford Motor Co. president and CEO Alan R. Mulally, officials told The Detroit News. ... The companies declined to confirm or deny the meetings. Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment.

Numerous other meetings have taken place between automobile representatives and the Bush Administration. In fact the White House even has a picture posted on its website from last year. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney meet with automotive CEOs Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2006, in the Oval Office. The automobile industry has opposed higher fuel efficiency standards for the last 20 years. In the past they also opposed seat belts, higher collision standards and air bags.

Cheney has been Bush's point person on stopping efforts to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions from cars and trucks. For almost seven years they held off efforts to protect the health of our families, cities and our environment. For those naysayers in the press and other who try to equate the Democratic Congress with the previous Republican run Congress, let me tell you - there is no comparison.

The just passed energy bill which increased fuel efficiency standards and set up efficiency standards for appliances was a step that only a Democratic Congress was going to pass. They did it despite the efforts of Bush and Cheney and the Republicans to stop it.

The Clean Car legislation from California and Washington State and other states goes even further. The refusal by EPA's Johnson to grant the waiver to move ahead with tougher emissions standards is going to be challenged in Court. The people want action to deal with global warming and climate change, not the obstruction coming from the Republicans and Bush and Cheney.

But being a Democrat I suppose I should not fret too much. Each action by Bush and Cheney to delay action on global warming only makes a stronger case for why people need to vote Democratic in the 2008 elections. Change is needed away from the corporate oligarchy that Bush and the Republicans have tried to impose on America. Its time to take the country back from the corporations.

Gregoire Will Fight Bush on Clear Car Legislation

Governor Gregoire announced today that she will take legal action against the Bush Administration's rejection of Washington State's Clean Car Legislation passed earlier this year.

Governor Gregoire said that she has "requested our Attorney General file in support of California’s challenge to this decision as soon as possible.”

As the Washington Post reported earlier, California Governor Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately announced his intention to fight President Bush's EPA's decision that was released yesterday.

"It is completely absurd to assert that California does not have a compelling need to fight global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emissions from cars," California Attorney General Jerry Brown said. "There is absolutely no legal justification for the Bush administration to deny this request _ Gov. Schwarzenegger and I are preparing to sue at the earliest possible moment."

The Associated Press reports that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski will also join in any legal action.

"Today's decision by the EPA is very disappointing for Oregon and our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming," Kulongoski said. But he said it "does not diminish my commitment to combat climate change and I will move forward with any legal or administrative means necessary to make sure Oregon can set its own tailpipe emission standards."

Also according to the Washington Post Maryland will join any legal action initiated. Maryland's Attorney General Douglas Gansler said

"Maryland officials want to join any litigation filed by officials in California, who have said they are preparing a lawsuit.
"We feel like we're on strong legal ground to bring this suit," Gansler said in a telephone interview yesterday. "There's no legal justification for them [the EPA] to deny the request."

The tailpipe standards California adopted in 2004 would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks beginning in the 2009 model year.

On Wednesday, Bush's EPA Administrator denied California's request for a waiver under the US Clean Air Act so they could implement stronger measures to clean up car pollution contributing to global warming and pollution. Washington' State's Clean Car Legislation would go into effect when California's did and would follow California's standards. Fifteen states in addition to Washington have passed legislation to enact the proposed California standards.

The states that sued the EPA in November to grant a waiver for stricter standards based on California's proposed standards included, in addition to California, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon and Washington.

Bush's EPA Kills Washington's Clean Car Legislation

The Environmental Protection Agency has continued oilman Bush's reactionary campaign against those working to reduce global warming. Wednesday, Bush's EPA denied a waiver to California allowed under the Clean Air Act to set its own vehicle emission standards. The action thwarts efforts by 17 states, including Washington State, to set stronger fuel efficiency standards for vehicles than that of Congress. See also NY Times

Anyone who thinks Bush has had a recent change of mind or heart regarding his past efforts opposing strong actions to reduce global carbon dioxide is mistaken. George Bush is still a corporate oilman at heart; and profit, not the future of the earth is his God. For all of Bush's professed religious righteousness, it seems he has forgotten some of his God's admonitions to
provide wise stewardship of the earth.

Bush opposed until the bitter end the energy legislation just passed by Congress to raise fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. He and his fellow Republicans in the US Senate weakened the legislation passed by forcing removal of provisions that would have shifted some $13 billion in tax breaks from the oil industry to renewable energy programs. Also removed were provisions calling on states to institute a goal of achieving 15% of the their energy being generated by renewable energy.

In the Washington Post today Bush is quoted as saying, "The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases or is it more effective to have a national strategy"

The fact is that we have only one state making a decision - California and that they want to implement fuel efficiency standards faster and tougher than what Congress passed. The other 16 states say they want to implement what California does. The Clean Air Act says they can do that.

Senator Barbara Boxer on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer tonight noted that the just passed energy bill mandating Federal fuel efficiency standards explicitly stated that nothing in the Act diminished the right of states under the Federal Clean Air Act to set higher state standards for air quality.

Senator Boxer said to expect that California and other states will go to Federal Court to challenge and overturn Bush's decision. Despite the news media seeming attributing this as a decision of the EPA, the fact is that this is a Bush decision.

Senator Boxer reported that Congress will be investigating the denial of the waiver by Bush. A report in the Washington Post said the final decision by the EPA per se was contrary to the internal advise within the EPA.

As reported by the Washington Post,

"House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson demanding "all documents relating to the California waiver request, other than those that are available on the public record."

Waxman told Johnson to have EPA staff preserve all records. The decision against California "appears to have ignored the evidence before the agency and the requirements of the Clean Air Act," Waxman wrote. He asked for all the relevant documents by Jan. 23."

If only we had a President that spent as much energy trying to solve global warming problems we face instead of trying to obstruct efforts to take action. Bush and the Republican Congress could have enacted stronger fuel efficiency standards years ago.

Americans need to realize that it was the Republicans that did not take action on this issue for years, not the Democrats. And with only a slim 51 vote majority in the US Senate this year and 60 votes needed to end a filibuster, Republicans continue to hinder needed action. Congress is not the problem - it is the Republicans in Congress and President Bush that have avoided acting earlier on global warming.

Only with a change of leadership to Democrats in the Presidency and a 60 vote Democratic majority in the Senate will we move forward without so much obstruction from Republicans that are so beholden to the wishes of the corporations over the general welfare of the American people and our environment.

Who's Raising Money for the 2008 Washington State Races?

Some candidates are getting an early start on raising money for the 2008 statewide races. Financial reports filed for the 2008 statewide races show the Governor's race getting the most attention.

As of the latest reports filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission for the period though Nov 30, 2007, Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire, has raised over $4,156,386, spent $1,368,739 and has $2,678,454 in cash on hand.

Republican Dino Rossi, who lost to Gregoire in 2004, is re-running and has raised $1,435,355, spent $525,748 and has $909,607 on hand.

Lt Governor Brad Owen, a Democrat reported raising $16,635, spending $6917 and having $9717 on hand. No Republican has filed yet with the PDC.

Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican has raised $635,617, spent $267,364 and has $368,252 in cash on hand. Although Pierce Count Executive John Ladenburg has been rumored to be considering a run for this seat, he has not filed with the Public Disclosure Commission.

Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, has raised $230,899, spent $62,023 and has $168,875 on hand. He has no announced opponents at this time.

The current State Treasurer Mike Murphy, a Democrat, is retiring. Democratic State Legislator Jim McIntire is running for this seat. He has raised $33,945, spent $13,899 and has $20,046 on hand. Allan Martin is the Republican candidate. He has raised $21,530, spent $1786 and has $19,744 in cash on hand.

Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland, a Republican has raised $157,459, spent $15,370 and has $142,088 in cash on hand. Former Democratic Congressional candidate Peter Goldmark from eastern Washington is challenging Sutherland for this seat. Goldmark has raised $59,969, spent $29,197 and has $30,371 in cash on hand.

State Auditor Brian Sonntag, a Demcrat, has no opponent at this time. He has raised $27,432, spent $4054 and has $23,398 on hand.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, a Democrat, has raised some $38,686, spent $12,046 and has $26,640 on hand.

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Terry Bergeson has raised $27,051, spent $1980, and has $25,071 on hand.

If only one name is mentioned in a race, it means no one else has filed with the PDC at this time.

None of these figures include money raised for independent expenditures in these races. In 2004, eg, the Building Industry Association of Washington, through its affiliated PAC called It's Time for A Change, made $1,053,251 in independent expenditures -most of it to support Republican Rob McKenna in his race for Attorney General. In addition $1.5 million came from out of state from the US Chamber of Commerce opposing Debra Senn in the primary.

Senn received $1,080,028 in contributions for her whole campaign. This approximately matched the $1,211,814 McKenna received directly to his campaign. The $ 2.5 million in independent expenditures supporting McKenna was more than both candidates raised together.
McKenna personally thanked the BIAW for their support on election night saying if it wasn't for the BIAW he wouldn't have been elected.

Senate Republicans Give $13 Billion Christmas Present to Oil Industry

If you need one more reason to vote Republicans out of Congress, just look at the huge $13 billion dollar Christmas present they gave the oil industry. The Senate yesterday passed landmark energy legislation to increase fuel efficiency of cars and trucks by 40% but on a 59 to 40 vote to end debate, were forced to strip from the bill key tax reform provisions to repeal special tax breaks for the oil industry. They also dropped a renewable energy mandate and renewable energy tax credits

One Democrat, Senator Mary Landieu supported the oil industry by voting no to end debate and one Republican, John McCain, was not present to vote. Considering the significance of this bill one has to wonder what he thought was more important than being there for the vote.

The 2008 election continues to shape up as a major turning point for America. It is an opportunity for Democrats to contrast their forward moving agenda to deal with issues like energy independence and global warming with the Republican sell out to corporate America at the expense of the common good for America's citizens and their pocketbooks.

Face it, the Republicans continue to live in the past and remain beholden to special interests like the oil industry. And Democrats need to show some spine and be leaders in moving America forward. As the New York Times writes today,

"some environmentalists said they were unhappy that the bill would not provide large incentives for expansion of renewable energy sources like wind, solar and biothermal.
Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth Action, accused Senate Democrats of “capitulating” to Senate Republicans and the White House.
“When the Republican leadership and the polluter lobby have blocked important legislation, Senate Democrats have been all too willing to move in their direction,” Mr. Blackwelder said in a statement. “The result is that the two most positive provisions of the energy bill — a clean energy mandate and a tax package reining in handouts for fossil fuels and promoting clean energy — are being removed, while detrimental provisions, such as a radical five-fold increase in unsustainable biofuel use, remain.”

Carl Hulse in On the Hill quotes what part of the strategy of the Republicans will be during the coming year. It will be to blame the Democrats for the problems Democrats inherited from the Republicans, all the while doing everything they can to be sure that Democrats get as little done as they can to solve these problems.

Here's what Hulse quotes the Republican National Committee saying in its comments on their recent victories in the Special Elections to fill two Congressional vacancies.

"The underlying economic anxiety that Americans feel toward the tax-and-spend policies of the new, wildly unpopular do-nothing Democratic Congress have led to the emergence of issues such as combating illegal immigration and providing tax relief to working families and will ultimately play to Republicans’ advantage next year,”

Give me a break. "Wildly unpopular do nothing Congress"? The Republicans are the ones obstructing getting things done. And President Bush's vetoes since the Democrats gained the majority are part of this strategy. The Republican strategy is to try to prevent the Democrats from passing significant legislation so that the Republicans can say it is the Democrats fault.

Look at what the Republicans do, not what they say. They are playing with right wing talk radio hype hoping Americans are easily deceived.

"Providing tax relief to working families" ? If you believe the Republicans are going to do this you sure didn't understand what was happening when they controlled Congress. Tell me how the Republicans, by preventing the repeal of the oil industries special tax breaks, and as a result giving $13 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry, is going to help working families.

The Republicans fought fuel efficiency legislation for cars and trucks all the way. The Democratic sponsored and passed bill according to the Environment News Service "is expected to save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day and save consumers some $22 billion in 2020. Proponents say it will also make a significant dent in U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, equivalent to taking some 60 million cars off the road. "

Thank you Democrats!

The Environmental News Service also noted that the Democratic passed legislation also "...tightens energy efficiency standards for government buildings as well as for consumer appliances and products.
"People underestimate efficiency, but today household appliances, lighting and electronics use up to two-thirds of energy in households," said Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat. "By requiring these new standards for manufacture of these products, we will save over 40,000 megawatts of energy. That is the same amount of electricity used in 19 states today."

Thank you Democrats!.

Washington State Leads Nation in Women Appointed to Cabinet Level Jobs

Governor Chris Gregoire's first term in office has resulted in several significant Washington State milestones. Washington State is currently the only state in the country with over half of its cabinet level appointments being held by women. It is also the state with the biggest increase in women in these positions in the last decade.

It is quite the opposite in some states. Both Texas and New Hampshire have no women in cabinet level positions. In the Northwest, Oregon only has 27% of its cabinet positions held by women; Idaho has only 17%. Currently 23 women hold cabinet level positions in Washington State, up from 11% in 1997.

Neil Modie in an article in the Seattle PI reports these and other facts from a just released study by the Women's Campaign Forum Foundation. Washington leads the nation according to the report because of among other things, "a commitment on the part of the governor's office to recruit a diverse pool of candidates for consideration for appointed positions."

We've written before about the disparity of women versus men in elected offices in this country. Our post was entitled "The Glass Ceiling for Women in Politics." Only 16% of our US Senators and 16% of our US Representatives are women. Of 50 Governors only 8 are women. And Internationally we rank 68th out of 189 nations in the percentage of women in national parliaments. Since last year we actually dropped from 67th.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "There are currently 1,729 women legislators serving across the country. Women hold 23.4 percent of legislative seats in the 50 states, a ratio that has increased only slightly over the past ten years."

Nationally men outnumber women in State Legislatures by 3 to 1. In Washington State, the figure is 2 to 1. We rank 7th in the country in women in the Legislature after Vermont 37.8%, New Hampshire 35.8%, Colorado 35%, Minnesota 34.8%, Arizona 33.3%, Hawaii 32.9% and Washington State 32.7% .

Gregoire's leadership in appointing women to state cabinet positions is important in helping achieve more parity and opportunity for women to assume leadership positions. As Neil Modie writes, the report "said women appointees tend to "open up more opportunities for women overall," and, "more importantly, appointed leadership is a vital pipeline to elected office" -- as it was for Gregoire, for example. She was an assistant state attorney general when former Gov. Booth Gardner appointed her head of the Department of Ecology. From there she was elected state attorney general and, in 2004, governor."

Washington State Sales Tax Deduction Dropped Again from U.S. Senate Bill

Dropped from the US Senate Bill passed last Thursday to reduce the alternative minimum tax that would have affected millions of taxpayers, was a provision that allows Washington State taxpayers to deduct their sales tax from their Federal income tax. Washington taxpayers will still be able to deduct 2007 sales taxes but not their 2008 sales taxes, because the current deduction will expire this year.

"As the senators wrangled over the AMT on Thursday, they dropped a provision that would allow residents of Washington and seven other states to continue deducting their sales taxes from their federal income tax.
Without that provision, residents will be able to deduct sales taxes when they file their 2007 federal income taxes in April. But then the tax deduction would expire.
Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, and Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, had been pushing bills to make the sales-tax deduction permanent, or at least extend it two more years.
Lawmakers from Washington and the seven other states with sales-tax deductions will try to pass a quick fix later this month or in January, a spokeswoman for Cantwell said."

We're not talking peanuts here. An analysis released by Senator Cantwell's and Representative Brian Baird's office notes that:

"The Congressional Research Service estimates that Washington state taxpayers who itemize and who claim the sales tax deduction will realize tax savings of more than $557 million.[iv] In 2005, 37 percent of the nearly three million tax filers in Washington state chose to itemize, and 83 percent of those itemizers claimed the state sales tax deduction.[v] That year, the $2 billion that Washington state taxpayers claimed in tax deductions translated into $557 million in tax savings that went right into the pockets of Washington state residents. Congressional Research Service estimates indicate that each Washington state taxpayer who used the state sales tax deduction saved an average of $600 in 2005."

The fact is that states which have a state income tax can deduct this on their Federal income tax. Washington state has no income tax. As Cantwell's office notes:

"In most states, taxpayers who claim itemized deductions on their federal income tax returns can claim a deduction for state income taxes paid. The purpose of this deduction is to prevent the double taxation of funds that are used to finance state services. However, from 1986 until 2004, residents of eight states that have no income tax but which finance their state services using a sales tax, were denied a Federal deduction for these state taxes. In 2004, Congress passed legislation to temporarily restore the deduction for state and local sales tax, thus restoring parity in the federal Income tax code for residents in those states without an income tax. Unless legislation is passed to extend this deduction, it will expire at the end of 2007." ...
"Without the state sales tax deduction, non-income tax states would be able to deduct only 36.6 percent of the state and local taxes they pay, all of which comes from property taxes. States with an income tax, by comparison, would be able to deduct 56.1 percent.[vi] This means that taxpayers who file in states with an income tax can expect to save substantially more than those who reside in the states without state income taxes. In 2004, Deductions from state and local income tax claimed on federal income tax forms totaled $202.3 billion.[vii] "

If Cantwell, Murray, Baird and the rest of the Congressional delegation are not successful in re-enacting the state sales tax deduction on Federal income tax returns for next year, the overall tax burden on Washington taxpayers will go up.

Of course this would increase citizen pressure for tax reform in Washington state. A state income tax coupled with a reduction in sales taxes and property taxes would both produce a less regressive state tax system and also allow for the ability of Washington State taxpayers to deduct their state income tax from their Federal income tax.

A state income tax is a fairer tax than sales taxes and property taxes which you have to pay whether you are working or not, whether you are retired or not and whether you have any income or not. But you only pay an income tax if you have income.

see also: Washington State Income Tax Makes Sense

Seattle PI Gives Short Shift to Gregoire's New Supreme Court Appointee

Today's print edition of the Seattle PI that I received at my home relegated Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire's appointment of Debra Stephens to the Washington State Supreme Court to a scant 131 words. It allotted it a space of 3 inches by 3.25 inches equal to 9.75 square inches.

Meanwhile the Seattle Times in a story entitled "Spokane native appointed to state's top court" wrote 972 words and gave the story some 84 square inches of space. What's up Seattle PI?

Is it any wonder voters don't know about candidates who are running for election or re-election to the Washington State Supreme Court when a major newspaper like the Seattle PI gives token only coverage to a new appointee to the Washington State Supreme Court.

The last reported entry on the PI's webpage is an AP story by Dave Ammons dated 5:48 P.M. on Tuesday Dec 4, 2007. There is no in depth story or any story on today's webpage this afternoon that I can find. It was only by tying in a search for Stephens that I found the AP story. So much for getting the current news.

Neil Modie in his Strange Bedfellows blog at the PI discusses some of the instant opposition to the appointment of Stephens by the right wing PAC, Justice for Washington, headed up by conservative former Senator Slade Gorton. They raised concern about Stephen's past association with the Washington State Trial Lawyers. Wonder why? I added the following comments to Modie's blog post that I think are important for people to know:

"Perhaps you should look at another connection as to why Justice for Washington would so quickly knee jerk oppose new Supreme Court Justice Stephens. Justice for Washington's most recent C1PC registration form filed with the Public Disclosure Commission has listed as it's treasurer Dana Childers.

Dana Childers is with the Liability Reform Coalition which represents the insurance industry. She was a chief spokesperson for the Reject R-67 campaign. R-67 was passed by the voters in November. The Washington State Trial Lawyers, although heavily outspent, won.

As you noted Stephens did appellate work for the Trial Lawyers Association. Justice for Washington is obviously a vehicle for the insurance industry to continue to assert itself in Washington politics. The insurance industry spent $11 million trying to defeat R-67."

I think once again, even though Governor Gregoire tried to appoint someone without controversy, the right wing sees controversy in anyone not believing as they do, and that we can again expect to see huge amounts of money funneled into upcoming state Supreme Court races like this one. As we have previously written, the Washington State Legislature needs to apply the same donor limits that apply for candidates to what individuals can contribute directly to PAC's because without limits, these so called independent contributions can quickly exceed donations to candidate's committees.

The Legislature should also revisit public financing for Supreme Court races. For candidates to be truly freely elected, the influence of special interest money needs to be controlled so as not to overwhelm the voice of the candidates themselves. When candidates lose the ability to be heard because special interest money dominates the airwaves, we all lose.

Additional information on Washington State Supreme Court appointee Debra Stephens:

Debra Stephens will replace Justice Bobbe Bridge who has resigned from the court. Stephens was appointed by Governor Gregoire 8 months ago to a seat on the Washington Court of Appeals. She ran unopposed last November. As an appointee to the Washington State Supreme Court she will have to run for re-election in November 2008.

Stephens is a native of Spokane Washington and practiced law there before becoming a judge. She is reported to have made over 100 appearances before the State Supreme Court.
She graduated from Gonzaga Law School in 1973 and has taught constitutional law there.

According to Governor Gregoire's press release,

"Stephens has taught at Gonzaga since 1995, where she helped to develop a course on state constitutional law. She is a founding member of the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association and a contributing author to the Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook. She has received recognition from “Washington Law & Politics” as a “Super Lawyer” (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007) and as one of the “Top 50 Women Lawyers” (2005) and “Top Appellate Lawyers” (2005).

She has also taught as an adjunct professor at Gonzaga University School of Law since 1997.Stephens received her Bachelor of Arts degree, Magna Cum Laude with honors, and her Juris Doctorate, Summa Cum Laude, from Gonzaga University. She is married to Craig Stephens and they reside with their two children, Lindsey and Bob, in Spokane"

Governor Gregoire Appoints Spokane Lawyer to Washington State Supreme Court

Governor Christine Gregoire today appointed state Court of Appeals Judge Debra Stephens to the Washington State Supreme Court. She replaces retiring Justice Bobbe Bridge. Stephens will have to stand for election next November.

Debra Stephens is from eastern Washington and gives eastern Washington representation on the Washington State Supreme Court. The last judge from eastern Washington was former Chief Justice Richard Guy who retired in 2000. And her appointment keeps the 5 to 4 male/female makeup of the court.

Only 7 months ago Gregoire appointed Stephens to the appellate court. She ran unopposed in the November election.

In selecting Stephens, Gregoire bypassed several people who previously ran for Supreme Court. These included Mary Kay Becker, an appellate judge in Bellingham and Hugh Spitzer, a Seattle constitutional law professor and attorney with Foster Pepper. Both are highly qualified candidates. Also under consideration had been King County Superior Court Judge Mary Yu.

Surprise? Right Wing Supreme Court Refuse to Hear McDermott's Appeal

Is it any surprise that the right wing US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of Congressman Jim McDermott's First Amendment case? Congressman McDermott case seems simple enough and the Supreme Court actually ruled on a similar case previously. But for a US Supreme Court that had seen fit, among other things, to appoint George Bush President; ignoring first amendment rights of a liberal Seattle Democratic Congressman is just small potatoes.

Congressman McDermott's sin was that he released a cell phone conversation between Rep John Boehner, Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders. Eli Sanders has a good account of the circumstances in an excellent in depth story he wrote last year for the Stranger entitled, "The War on Jim McDermott".

"The Republican legal crusade against McDermott has its roots in a 1996 ethics charge that bedeviled former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. At the time, McDermott was the ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee and Gingrich, the mastermind of the 1994 "Republican Revolution," which gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, was facing complaints over his use of a college course for political purposes. To settle the complaint, Gingrich agreed to pay a $300,000 fine and promised not to publicly minimize, or "spin," the charge against him.
"That was the genesis of this phone call," McDermott says, referring to a conference call that Gingrich held in secret with Republican leaders shortly after the settlement. "Essentially, he was encouraging them to figure out how to spin it," McDermott says—a direct violation of his agreement with the ethics committee....
Gingrich's secret conference call involved several members of the Republican House leadership, and as it happened, one of those leaders, Boehner, the congressman from Ohio, was driving through Florida at the very moment his colleagues needed him to be on the phone. So Boehner pulled into the parking lot of a Waffle House and joined the conference call on his cell. The date was December 21, 1996.
Not far away, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, were messing around with their police radio scanner and happened to pick up the call as the Republicans were talking about how to spin Gingrich's ethics charge. Being Democrats who followed politics, they realized whom they were hearing and decided to make a tape for posterity. Then, realizing what they had heard, they decided to tell their congresswoman, Karen L. Thurman. She, in turn, encouraged them to give the tape to McDermott because of his position on the ethics committee .
What the Martins had done—recording a private cell-phone conversation and distributing it to others—was illegal. (Indeed, they were later prosecuted by the Justice Department, pleaded guilty to intercepting private electronic communications, and paid a $500 fine.) But the Martins' illegal behavior had produced information that was of public importance: a recording of congressmen plotting to get around an agreement with the House ethics committee. To get it out to the public, they turned to their representatives in Congress, and in that sense, this was not all that different a scenario than the common one in which a whistleblower, in violation of the law, makes a copy of a secret government or corporate record and then provides that record to another person, often a journalist, who has the power to make sure the document is widely read.
"I felt people ought to know right now," McDermott says, explaining why he did what he did next, which was leak the tape to the New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The story of the tape, which hit the front page of the New York Times on January 10, 1997, proved to be a political sensation, and when it came out that McDermott was behind the leak, Republicans reacted with fury. McDermott, however, believed he had a First Amendment right to leak the contents of the tape, just like the journalists who wrote about it had a right to quote from it; none of them, after all, had participated in the illegal behavior that led to the creation of the tape in the first place. .... Boehner decided, in March of 1998, to file a civil suit against McDermott seeking $10,000 in damages for the disclosure of his private phone call.
It was the first time one congressman had sued another in civil court, and it marked the beginning of a draining legal fight that has gone up and down the federal court system for the last eight years, costing each side well over half a million dollars.

There is more to the story of course. Sanders noted that many members of the news media sided with McDermott regarding the first amendment issues. Sanders goes on to cite a similar case the Supreme Court decided.

"...the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar 2001 case that, just like McDermott's, involved a damning audiotape that had been made by illegally intercepting a cell-phone conversation. That tape was passed on anonymously to a Pennsylvania radio station, which then broadcast the recording. In its ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court sided with the radio station, writing: "It would be quite remarkable to hold that speech by a law-abiding possessor of information can be suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party."

The PI headline reads "McDermott loses appeal, and must pay lawmaker" I think this is the wrong headline. A more accurate one would be someting like "Jim McDermott Denied Hearing before Supreme Court because he Belongs to the Wrong Political Party" or " Supreme Court Sides with Appeals Court Against First Amendment Rights" or Supreme Court Supports Secrecy over Public's Right to Know"

You can read more about the case and McDermott's legal arguments by going to "The Jim McDermott Legal Expense Trust" There is also a link here that will allow you to make a contribution to help pay McDermott's legal fees incurred in his First Amendment defense.