A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1WASTE WATCHERS 9UNEXPECTED OPPORTUNITIES 6 DECERTIFICATION: A GROWING TREND? 10

LIVING LIBERTYDECEMBER 2005 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

Evergreen Freedom FoundationPO Box 552Olympia, WA 98507

Address service requested

L ast year at this time, the state auditor was rel-egated to bean-counting—prohibited from analyzing the performance of government to

determine if it is effi ciently, effectively and economi-cally spending our tax dollars. Thanks to the voters’ approval of Tim Eyman’s I-900, however, the state audi-tor is now free to do the job we hired him to do—to hold government accountable to the taxpayer.

I-900’s solid 57 percent approval demonstrates that EFF’s numerous publications, countless hours of research and meetings, and Bob Williams’ 25-plus years of work calling for meaningful and independent perfor-mance audits were worth every bit of the effort.

What are performance audits? Performance audits are a valuable management tool,

carefully structured around tough, nationally recog-nized auditing principles. Here are the non-negotiables, as defi ned by the U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce Auditing Standards (a.k.a. Yellow Book): • Independence. Auditors must be independent, both

in fact and appearance from personal, external, and organizational impairments to independence.

• Suffi cient, competent, and relevant evidence must be obtained. Self assessments do not count.

• Effi ciency, economy and effectiveness (program audits) are the three standards that defi ne performance audits. They are a three-legged stool.

• Comprehensive written reports must be communi-cated to designated authorities in a timely fashion.

• All performance audits should follow generally accepted government auditing standards.

EFF performance audit efforts Since EFF began in 1991 we’ve been working to

secure independent performance audit authority for the state auditor. This past year it appeared the legislature was fi nally ready to do the right thing and grant the state auditor this long overdue authority. EFF crafted

model performance audit language last fall for use by interested lawmakers and asked all lawmakers to sign a pledge saying they would support performance audits that allowed the scope of the audits to “be established by the elected state auditor, not an unelected group of citi-zens appointed by the governor and legislature.” Sev-enty legislators agreed.

Unfortunately, the bill approved by the legislature (HB 1064) required that an “advisory” board of political appointees “establish criteria for performance audits,” instead of the state auditor. Amendments to HB 1064 were offered in both the House and the Senate that would have granted the state auditor the authority to establish the scope of performance audits instead of the political “advisory” board. These measures failed by two votes in the House and one vote in the Senate.

Nineteen of the legislators who signed our pledge failed to honor it by not supporting the amendments to put the state auditor in charge. Had just three of these nineteen kept their word, I-900 may not have been nec-essary.

Surprisingly, in a compromise to secure Republican votes for last session’s transportation tax (SB 6103), the legislature authorized independent performance audits for the Department of Transportation (DOT). This

despite the fact that HB 1064 explicitly prohibited the state auditor from conducting performance audits of DOT.

With these confl icting messages, it’s no wonder the people ended the performance audit debate by passing I-900.

Next stepsTo ensure that independent performance audits con-

ducted by the state auditor under I-900 are not in any way inhibited, the legislature should revise its perfor-mance audit law (HB 1064) to better serve Washington taxpayers. The current oversight board authorized by HB 1064 should instead be advisory, focusing on per-formance reviews as directed by the governor.

The restricted audit authority granted under HB 1064 is in confl ict with the state auditor’s performance audit powers authorized by I-900. Rather than totally repeal HB 1064 and the existence of the citizen oversight board, legislators should amend the law’s provisions to compliment I-900.• Change the board’s membership. The state auditor,

director of the Offi ce of Financial Management, and

Continued on page 4

2 LIVING LIBERTY

3

45

6789101112

3 LETTER FROM LYNN ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS. . . IF SCHOOLS WON’T INFORM PARENTS, WE WILL

4 UNIONS SILENCE WORKERS TO PROTECT POLITICAL POWER 5 A STATE OF EMERGENCY COLORADO VOTERS GIVE POLITICIANS A BLANK CHECK 6 KATRINA LEGACY PROJECT UNEXPECTED OPPORTUNITIES

7 CAUTION: FERRY RIDERS MAY GET WET BACKING DOWN ON DAVIS-BACON

8 TIME FOR NEW THINKING ABOUT POVERTY

9 WASTE WATCHERS WHISTLE-BLOWER TRIAL IS JUST THE LATEST SIGN OF TROUBLE WITH THE FERRIES

10 DECERTIFICATION: A GROWING TREND FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES? THANK GOD FOR AMERICAN HEALTH CARE 11 WORKFIRST REFORMS WOULD ENSURE FINANCIAL STABILITY 12 INVEST IN FREEDOM

of the month“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

Fax (360) 352-1874 info@effwa.org • www.effwa.org

Editors:Lynn Harsh Marsha Richards

Publisher:Joel Sorrell

VOLUME 15, Issue 12

Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation.

Living Liberty is a publication of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“It’s much easier to frighten people by telling them thousands of our kids might not graduate if we stick to our standards than to admit that thousands of our kids already graduate without the ability to read, write and do math at a level that will allow them success in the world.”

-- Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson in her annual state-of-

education address.

Mark Your CalendarEFF Building Dedication & Open HouseAll members are invited to come!January 13, 2006

We want to wish you and

your family the very best

this holiday season.

– EFF Staff

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from Lynnf LyLETTER FROM LYNNby Lynn Harsh

IAll I want for Christmas. . .

don’t want much for Christmas: just the safe return of my youngest son from Iraq, signifi cant Congressio-

nal budget cuts, and the clean-up of our state’s voter rolls. But it’s easier to talk with God about my son than with the U.S. Senate Appropriations Chair Ted Stevens about the budget or our own Secretary of State Sam Reed about election clean-up. Maybe I’ll get one out of three.

Oh, and how about a few action heroes, too—the mentally mus-cular, budget-cutting, tax-payer-defending kind.

I can hardly bear to watch the federal appropriation pro-cess, where big spenders like Senator Ted Stevens oversee the allo-cation of money that does not belong to them on projects they pontifi cate are essential for the public good.

Case in point: our own Senator Patty Murray’s half-a-million dollar “sculpture park” project. According to U.S. Senator Tom Coburn’s offi ce, Murray appeared on the Senate fl oor and issued a verbal threat about what would happen to other members’ pet projects if they touched her line item for the Seattle Art Muse-um’s waterfront sculpture park. Those

funds, by the way, will come from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, where presumably the money might otherwise go to projects related to helping the poor.

Let’s be crystal clear about what’s hap-pening here: Taxpayers from all over America will send money to Seattle to pay to “revitalize a neglected portion of the waterfront, reuse contaminated land

and strengthen the seawall.” (Appar-ently, the sculptures will be part of

the seawall.) I’m sure taxpayers in Kansas will feel honored to

help us with our wall art! Sadly, Democrat Patty Murray and

Republican Appropriations Chair-man Stevens see eye-to-eye on projects they believe must be funded by the fed-eral government—using somebody else’s money, of course. It was Stevens, after all, who threatened to quit the Senate if members cut his $223 million “bridge to nowhere.” He threw a tantrum and said members would have to “carry him off the fl oor” if he didn’t get his way.

Now wouldn’t that have been a grand event! And great mid-term election strat-egy for Congressional Republicans, who for the most part, seem to have lost their

way. If either Democrats or Republicans had called Steven’s bluff, they could have emerged as the party of reform, willing to toss the good ‘ole boys spending club out the door on behalf of taxpayers and true priorities.

It’s ironic that Senator Stevens some-times wears a tie sporting the image of the Incredible Hulk—that cartoon action fi gure who turns green and becomes tem-porarily disfi gured after experiencing a fi t of rage. I guess that works for him.

But I prefer a different kind of action hero. There’s Superman Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, who boldly called on his own colleagues in the U.S. Senate to reduce their pork-barrel spend-ing. It hasn’t happened yet, but watch out for this mild-mannered doctor who, without the benefi t of a telephone booth, quickly turns into a man of steel. We need to help Coburn protect himself from metahumans and their kryptonite—oth-erwise known as members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who savagely strike using pencils without erasers.

Then there’s the Dynamic Duo, Rep-resentatives Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). They combine their deductive, tactical and verbal skills to

fi ght corruption and crime in Gotham City—I mean, in the House Chambers. Their enemies are legion: The Joker, Cat-woman, Clayface, the Penguin, the Mad Hatter, and Two-Face. You can decide for yourself which are the aliases of Repre-sentatives Pelossi, Reid, Young, Lewis, Obey, and Delay (who said last month that nobody had been able to come up with any budget cuts that wouldn’t affect “important infrastructure”).

I don’t know what to say about our sec-retary of state Sam Reed and his deputy Nick Handy. Radioactive Man and Fall-out Boy, perhaps?

We may as well smile a little. Noth-ing can be gained by getting completely morose about all this waste and irrespon-sibility. We just need more superheroes. Let’s fi nd some and elect them.

Really, I don’t sit around and read comic books all day, but I did rear boys who read heaps of them. I remember that Superman and Batman belonged to the fi ctitious “Justice League of America.” Principled public servants like Mssrs. Coburn, Pence and Flake belong to the real “Justice League of America.” I’ll take those action fi gure heroes under my tree any day.

nder the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), parents who

have children in chronically failing pub-lic schools can transfer their children to a more successful public school or seek private tutoring services. School districts must use a portion of their federal funds to pay for these options.

As you might imagine, most district offi cials are not eager to see money diverted to other service providers. Federal law requires schools to notify parents of their options, but little effort is made to do so.

To be sure, a district may go through the motions. This year, the Tacoma School District sent letters to thousands of parents who have the right to transfer or get tutoring for their children. But you’d almost have to be a lawyer to understand what the letters mean. It’s little wonder only a few dozen parents responded to fi nd out more.

That’s why we decided to send a letter and “check” to 4,400 households in the neighborhoods surrounding three of Tacoma’s worst performing schools. We want parents to know about their rights. We want them to be able to seek better instruction for their children. We want them to know they can think and act like education consumers.

Our letter earned excellent media coverage on the front page and editorial page of the Tacoma News Tribune and four of Seattle’s largest radio stations (KIRO, KOMO, KTTH, and KVI). We received calls and compliments from other education reformers all around the country.

This coverage is wonderful, but a lot more work must be done to ensure parents get the message—not just in one school district, but all over our state. One letter won’t be enough. We need faces and voices in neighborhoods who can spread the word and help parents understand their options.

Our next step is to build an active citizen coalition in Tacoma. We will work with parents, churches, community groups, potential tutors, and other concerned citizens to spread the word far and wide.

If you know parents in Tacoma’s Hilltop neighborhood who may benefi t, or if you would like to assist us in this effort, fi nancially or otherwise, please contact me at mrichards@effwa.org or 360-956-3482.

It’s time to challenge and change the failed status quo.

by Marsha RichardsIf schools won’t inform parents, we will

U

4 LIVING LIBERTY

the legislative auditor should be allowed to appoint a representative from their offi ce to serve in their place on the board. The remaining board member-ship should remain as currently structured.

• Have the board advise governor. Since I-900 authorizes the state auditor to be fully in charge of performance audits without a gatekeeper, the board should serve as advisors to the governor instead of the state auditor.

• Focus board on performance reviews, not perfor-mance audits. Instead of being authorized to over-see performance audits (detailed audits conducted in compliance with GAO yellow book standards), the board’s focus should be on commissioning perfor-mance reviews (broader surveys not requiring pro-fessional auditors). The board could be authorized to contract for performance reviews or could recom-mend the governor do so. With I-900’s independent performance audit authority for the state auditor, the citizen board created under HB 1064 should not be involved in overseeing any performance audits.

• Reduce funding to refl ect more targeted duties. The funding authorized by HB 1064 should be reduced since the board would no longer be respon-sible for conducting performance audits. Funding should be restructured around the desired number of performance reviews to be conducted.

By adopting these changes the legislature could ensure the service provided by the citizen advisory board is tar-geted to assist the governor in conducting performance

reviews and will not duplicate—nor in any way inhibit—the indepen-dent performance audits conducted by the state auditor under I-900. The results of any performance reviews could then be provided to the state auditor to help identify areas for per-formance audits. This new focus for the citizen board would also compli-ment the governor’s GMAP (govern-ment management, accountability and performance system) efforts.

Though changes are now nec-essary to HB 1064, to fulfi ll the accountability promises made to the taxpayers in SB 6103 (gas-tax), no changes should be made to the funding provided to the state audi-tor to conduct performance audits of the Department of Transportation. By keeping both funding sources (SB 6103/I-900), transportation will be able to receive the review promised by the legislature, while not compromising I-900’s funding for other per-formance audits.

Don’t mess with the will of the people Elected offi cials should not seek ways around the

law, but instead embrace the opportunities that perfor-mance audits provide to address the people’s continued demand that government focus on performance. The purpose of government is, after all, to provide essential public services. If vital government core functions are

alifornia public employee unions threw their con-siderable might into defeating that state’s paycheck

protection initiative, Proposition 75, levying exorbitant mandatory political assessments on members, distort-ing the measure’s purpose, and cowing union members into submission. This victory will only embolden union bosses to continue their gluttony of coercion. We must work harder to stop them.

Prop. 75 would have required unions to ask members for permission before spending collective bargaining dues on political activity. This common-sense measure protects public employees—who must pay for union representation as a condition of employment—from making unwanted political contributions, and would have made union leadership accountable and responsive to members.

In states with paycheck protection laws, such as Wash-ington and Utah, 90 to 95 percent of teachers (even self-identifi ed “liberal” teachers) refuse to support the union’s political agenda.

The defeat of Prop. 75 demonstrates the increased need for paycheck protection measures. What other organization has the legal ability to force people to join against their will and then raise dues to support an insa-tiable appetite for political power? Unions claim to have defeated Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger with the failure of Prop. 75, but the people who really lost are the teach-ers, nurses and fi refi ghters of California who must con-tinue to fi nance political campaigns against their will.

Unions were able to amass huge political war chests by raising mandatory dues. The California Teachers Association (CTA) imposed a $180 special assessment on its members, raising $60 million dollars to fi ght Schwarzenegger’s initiatives. The CTA mortgaged its own headquarters in order to get the total sum immedi-ately, and then obtained an additional $40 million line of credit.

Other unions followed suit. The California State Employees Association collected $12 million from its members, while the California Correctional Peace Offi -cers Association imposed a $33 a month political fee on its members, raising $18 million for the fi ght.

The results of the special election would have been different if union members had a choice whether or not

order to maintain themselves, unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast.”

Proposition 75 would have placed control over union spending back in the hands of workers, but apparently union offi cials are afraid of democracy.

Nationally, the labor movement is in a state of upheaval. The AFL-CIO—the national federation of nearly 60 unions—experienced a break in solidarity when several unions representing a third of its members pulled out in July. Union membership is at an all-time low, with only 12 percent of the workforce belonging to a union, compared to one in three workers a half century ago. Big Labor candidates have lost the last two presidential elections.

Labor’s power is shrinking because unions do not adequately represent the views of their members. Long recognized as a liberal-leaning organization, a recent survey of National Education Association members revealed that a full 50 percent of teachers now describe themselves as conservative. Among new teachers (who have been on the job three years or less), the conservative block goes up to 58 percent.

The increasingly desperate measures to reverse labor’s decline—coupled with the legal ability to overcharge for collective bargaining—threaten the rights of those whom unions are supposed to protect. The cash-fl ush unions in California only demonstrate union offi cials’ disdain for the individual preferences of rank-and-fi le members.

by Michael ReitzUnions silence workers to protect political power

C

The results of the special election would have been different if union members had a choice whether or not to fund the union’s campaign. Unfortunately, their paychecks were not protected.

Unions claim to have defeated Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger with the failure of Prop. 75, but the people who really lost are the teachers, nurses and firefighters of California who must continue to finance polit-ical campaigns against their will.

order to maintain themselves, unions hasome ability to strap their members to th

Proposition 75 would have placed conspending back in the hands of workers, union offi cial

Nationally, tThe AFL-CIO—the national feunions—experienced a break in solidarunions representing a third of its membin July. Union membership is at an all-timonly 12 percent of the workforce belongingcompared to one in three workers a half cBig Labor candidates have lost the last two pelections.

hrinking because uniohe views of their membal-leaning organization

survey of National Education Associationrevealed that a full 50 percent of teachers nothemselves as conservative. Among new teahave been on the job three years or less), the coblock goes up to 58 percent.

The increasingly desperate measures to revdecline—coupled with the legal ability to ovecollective bargaining—threaten the rights ofunions are supposed to protect. The cash-fl California only demonstrate union offi cithe individual preferences of rank-and

he results of the special electould have been different if unembers had a choice whether

union’s campaigtheir paychecks

ected.

not being delivered effi ciently, effectively and economi-cally, no one should be satisfi ed.

Not only are tax dollars prone to being wasted when performance is not a high priority, but clients of essen-tial government services are done a disservice if the pro-grams are not being delivered in an effective manner.

Done right, performance audits will identify ways to improve service delivery and highlight wasteful spend-ing. They will also go a long way towards restoring the people’s trust in government. Thanks to years of sup-port and the voters’ approval of I-900, we may fi nally be able to answer the question, “Are we getting the biggest bang for our buck?”

You did it, continued from page 1. . .

to fund the union’s campaign. Unfortunately, their pay-checks were not protected.

Big Labor’s claims throughout the campaign of being outspent by its opposition were patently false. The “No on 75” campaigns spent over $41 million, while the two “Yes on 75” committees spent about $2.6 million. The governor’s California Recovery Team spent $32 million on his package of reforms (Propositions 74, 75, 76, 77), but union spending exceeded $150 million.

This spending would be fi ne, if it was directed by the voluntary contributions of union members. But when an insulated minority of union offi cials control the purse strings, members’ preferences are given little regard.

Union offi cials recognize the inability to fi nance their political efforts without the element of coercion. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich once said, “In

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

ast month, Colorado residents voted to “tem-porarily” suspend the state’s tax and spending

limit. The passage of Referendum C allows the state to spend an additional $3.7 billion over the next fi ve years that otherwise would have been refunded to tax-payers.

Perhaps the Colorado vote should come as no surprise. Unfortunately, voters in Colorado fell prey to their politicians’ best Chicken Little impersonation. Much like we experienced with the threats that people would die if I-912 (gas tax repeal) was approved, Colorado voters were faced with a steady onslaught of media and politicians’ statements that the sky would fall if government could not spend more money.

The Referendum C debate didn’t have to happen. The key to a state’s budget health is the ability of elected offi cials to effectively prioritize spending within available revenue. In May of 2004, EFF offered to work with Colorado’s Republican Governor Bill Owens to help him implement priorities of government budgeting to assist with Colorado’s budget diffi culties. Unfortunately, he rejected our offer.

Had Governor Owens been open to reforming Colorado’s budget system, Referendum C would never have seen the light of day. A prioritized, performance-based budget is a natural fi t with a meaningful tax and spending limit. To the loss of Coloradoans, Governor Owens chose the easy road instead.

It is worth noting Colorado and Washington’s similar experience with tax and spending limits. Both states’ tax limits faced threats as a result of subsequent education initiatives mandating unsustainable spending increases. Colorado’s education spending Amendment

23 was the real budget culprit in that state, not its tax and spending limit.

Likewise, Washington’s spending limit was effectively gutted this past legislative session by Democrats’ decision to raise taxes to fund initiatives 728 (class size reduction) and 732 (teacher pay), which promised no tax increases would be necessary.

The similarity between the two states, however, will likely end with Colorado’s vote on Referendum C.

While Colorado voters may be willing to give their politicians a blank check, Washingtonians expect more fi scal restraint from their government.

by Jason MercierColorado voters give politicians a blank check

L

wise man once said, “One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem

before it becomes an emergency.” When it comes to Washington state elections, our leaders have turned that proverb around.

The gubernatorial race of 2004 revealed that our elections system, the very foundation of our republic, teeters on weak legs. This state of emergency might have gone unnoticed for many more years, but the spotlight on the Gregoire versus Rossi race exposed the problems. We called for election offi cials to enact the reforms needed to not just patch up the system, but to completely overhaul it.

This past year, culminating in the recent general election, tells the tale of how election leaders responded. Time and again problems, mistakes and possible fraud have been blamed on “voter mistake,” “human error” and “common problems.” Changes have only been made when absolutely necessary. For example, the problem of provisional ballots being placed directly into AccuVote machines was brought to Dean Logan’s attention long before last fall, but it took the election fi asco and new legislation to actually make the change.

We would be remiss, however, not to agree that Secretary Reed and others have shown leadership this year. They have set an example of how to sweep evidence of potential fraud under the table, how to gloss over fatal fl aws in the voter registration system, and how to twist the laws to agree with preconceived ideas about the acceptability of human error.

But when it comes to tightening ballot security and holding wrongdoers accountable, few have stepped up to the plate. In fact, Secretary Reed and others have actively discouraged such reforms, claiming their job is to make sure voting is as easy as possible. The guide for King County election workers even instructs, “You are never justifi ed in denying a voter the right to vote.”

They mean it, too. In at least two instances during this year’s general election, King County poll inspectors

by Jonathan BechtleA State of Emergency

A became visibly upset when poll workers dared to suggest challenging the ballots of ineligible voters.

Our state constitution only gives voting rights to a person who meets the eligibility requirements: a citizen over age 18 who has resided in Washington for 30 days, and who is not a felon or mentally incompetent.

This lack of leadership has led to a lack of reform. No one has been held accountable; hardly anyone has even been investigated.

So it is no surprise that our election problems continue. Less than four hours after the polls opened November 8, 2005, EFF had identifi ed several problems, including: • Absentee ballots in King County being unlawfully

forwarded by the post offi ce without the legally required warnings. This also occurred in the primary, and was brought to King County elections chief Dean Logan’s attention, yet it happened again.

• Absentee ballots in King County not being accounted for properly. Ballots were lost in the 2004 general election, in the 2005 primary, and were assuredly lost again in the 2005 general election.

“We can’t wait for three decades to fi x this problem. EFF and the citizens of Washington must fi ll the leadership gap. We declare a state of emergency in our elections system. And we will work together to bring meaningful reform.”

• The voting rolls still listing scores of illegal voters, including the dead, duplicate registrants, felons (who have not had their voting rights restored), and non-citizens. Thousands of double registrations are still being found; many more remain. Also, the Secretary of State still has no way to verify citizenship. All of these people had an opportunity to vote.

• Double votes being counted, as the voter crediting process was not standardized by the Secretary of State. This occurred in the primary and undoubtedly took place again.

• Ballots with mismatched signatures being counted. Signature-matching procedures remain inconsistent between the counties; the criteria for matching sig-natures are fl awed.

This is not an exhaustive list, by any means; merely an initial one. If you have seen any problems like these, let us know. We fully expect to fi nd more problems arising as the ballots are counted and certifi ed. Even if we don’t, it will be because there were no close races, and because it has become harder to fi nd errors under the vote-by-mail system.

Is true election reform a lost cause? For an answer we can look to Initiative 900, the performance audits package. EFF President Bob Williams and many others worked for almost three decades to bring meaningful performance audits to Washington, and now it has fi nally happened.

But we can’t wait for three decades to fi x this problem. EFF and the citizens of Washington must fi ll the leadership gap. We declare a state of emergency in our elections system. And we will work together to bring meaningful reform. Victory will not be measured by time or political power alone, but by the depth of our determination.

The staff and board of EFF are committed to restoring integrity to the election process, and we will not give up until this mission is accomplished.

If given the chance to vote next year on an initiative restoring the state’s gutted tax and spending limit, Washingtonians would likely tvote for limited taxes and spending.

With Colorado’s “time-out” from responsible budgeting, Washington can now become the standard-bearer for how governments should budget by fully integrating priorities of government budgeting, independent performance audits, Governor Gregoire’s GMAP (government management, accountability and performance system) reform, and a new and improved tax and spending limit.

“While Colorado voters may be willing to give their politicians a blank check, Washingtonians expect more fiscal restraint from their government.”

6 LIVING LIBERTY

• public health and safety, including emergency preparedness, is a core function of state and local governments and should receive the proper level of attention, plan-ning, oversight and funding;

• efforts to provide relief, aid in a recovery and rebuilding after a natural or man-made disaster should be accomplished in a way that is fi scally responsible, oper-ationally practical, demonstrates accountability, and that properly distinguishes those functions government should perform versus individuals and the private sec-tor; and

• in the American governing and economic systems, individuals hold the most power, and this means we also have the most responsibility.

The Katrina Project is divided into three parts:

I. Priorities Matter! EFF will continue to be a voice for responsible, accountable government at all levels. We will: • Ask EFF members to write to our Congressional delegation urging them to support

Operation Offset and come up with their own recommendations.• Contrast the plans and motivations of offi cials who reject reform or who just say

“give us more money.”• Pass on helpful suggestions to our think tank colleagues nationwide as appropriate.• Help point out wasteful or non-priority federal spending that could be redirected.

Politicians cannot be allowed to waste pre-cious resources on skate parks, squirrel bridges, and ball parks for millionaires, while core functions of government go neglected.

II. The Three R’s: Relief, Recovery and Rebuilding. Using Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida as examples, we will describe and discuss the core functions of state gov-ernment and the private sector related to ter-rorism and natural disaster relief, recovery and rebuilding. We will:• Work with Gov. Barbour, the Mississippi legislature and Louisiana legislators on ways to drastically cut state spending according to a core priorities’ model.• Monitor what works and what doesn’t when compared and contrasted against a core priorities’ model.

• Provide a location on our website to update people on the progress of the 3 R’s. It will link to key documents prepared by us and others.

III. Is Washington Ready? What about our own state’s readiness? We will:• Review Washington state’s emergency preparedness plan and appropriations,

including interwoven jurisdictional and military issues.

Continued on page 9

ome of the greatest success stories in life are told by people who were ready to act when an opportunity presented itself. It sounds simple. But “opportu-nity” often comes in a package labeled “tragedy” or “disappointment,” and

the person holding the package usually hasn’t asked for it. Tanya, for example, is a little girl whose earthly belongings have been reduced to

what her father packed into the car he used to fl ee their ramshackle house. It didn’t survive Katrina’s windy and watery rage. But Tanya’s dad says their forced exodus has put his daughter in a safer and more successful school, and he is training for a job that will allow him to achieve the fi nancial independence he has never experienced as a young adult. He looks forward to building a new life.

What is true for this individual family is also true on a broader public policy scale. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita allowed us to experience certain realities in living color—all related to the responsibility of individuals and the core functions of government. It gives us a chance to rethink what we expect government to do.

We have the opportunity to talk about the role of individuals in a society that depends on self-governance for its survival. We can discuss the proper role of government at all levels. We can easily illustrate that, when government operates outside its boundaries, it will be remarkably ineffi cient at best. At worst, it will trample human liberty and opportunity.

As Thomas Jefferson, the architect of the Declaration of Independence, said: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifi cally drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless fi eld of power, no longer susceptible of any defi nition.”

Unfortunately, we Americans have become accustomed to allowing government to make many decisions for us, and we have come to expect it to bail us out when we face hardship or tragedy.

When a Category 4 hurricane struck, creating many emergencies that affected public health and safety, even with three or four days of warning no level of government responded appropriately. Yet each had plans on paper. Many individuals did not respond appropriately either.

But the private sector, for the most part, managed admirably, showing it is not the refuge of last resort. It is the natural lead in delivering goods and services in all areas save those clearly identifi ed as core government functions.

What about our state? Are we ready to cope properly with a natural or man-made disaster? If not, why not? Broadly speaking, what should be done? Do current budget allocations refl ect lawmakers’ commitment to protecting public health and safety, or do they refl ect a hodgepodge of parochial special interests? Do budget allocations refl ect an understanding of the principal role of Washington state government?

We intend to answer these questions while renewing fundamental American principles in the hearts and minds of this generation. With this in mind, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has launched the Katrina Legacy Project.

The Purpose of the ProjectThrough the Katrina Legacy Project, EFF will use the lessons learned to remind

Americans—especially Washingtonians—that: • Our form of government only works when governments and individuals adhere to

the necessary separation of powers, duties and responsibilities;

UNEXPECTED OPPORTUNITIESBY LYNN HARSH

"The private sector, for the most part, managed admirably, showing it is not the refuge of last resort. It is the natural lead in delivering goods and services in all areas save those clearly identified as core government functions."

IMAG

E SO

URCE

: FEM

A

S

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

his has not been a good couple of months for President Bush. The Fitzgerald in-dictments, the Miers meltdown, runaway federal spending. . . and now the Pres-

ident has rescinded his previous suspension of Davis-Bacon wage restrictions, which will sharply drive up the cost of reconstruction in the entire Gulf region. This reversal is especially tragic, since the original suspension ranks among President Bush’s most important labor policy decisions.

President Bush moved quickly after Hurricane Katrina hit to suspend the Depression-era Davis-Bacon law that mandates so-called “prevailing wages” for all federal construction work projects. Recent press reports predict at least $200 billion in new construction costs will eventually be spent to rebuild the Gulf Coast states. A Davis-Bacon suspension could easily save the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.

The Davis-Bacon Act, passed in 1931, requires all federal contractors to pay “prevailing wages,” almost always the local union wage, on construction projects of more than $2,000 that are wholly or partly funded with federal dollars. Many state legislatures, under pressure to protect union jobs in the North and hostile to black migrant labor from the South, also passed similar wage schemes known as mini-

hould these numbers be cause for concern? The answer depends on whom you ask. According to WSF, ferry capacity is rarely

reached, and an alternative life-saving plan was approved by the Coast Guard.

WSF complies with Coast Guard requirements by receiving an alternative certifi cation through adopting regulations that “allow vessels to perform a safety assessment in lieu of the survival craft requirements.” This includes “assistance to be rendered by another ferry through the launching, transporting and nesting of additional life rafts.”

In fact, WSF says the reason why it chose to pursue alternative cer-tifi cation from the Coast Guard, instead of providing enough life raft capacity, is to save taxpayers money. However, the lack of assured life raft capacity to match passenger capacity leads to the following statement from WSF’s plan:

In the unlikely event that there are not enough survival craft for total number of passengers aboard the vessel, the crew members in charge at the Embarka-tion Stations must be well trained and prepared to maintain control to ensure the survival craft are properly loaded with the people most likely to succumb to hypothermia.Translation: WSF staff will try to determine who is most likely to freeze to death

and make sure these individuals have a seat in the life raft. Another section of the plan notes:

CAUTION:FERRY RIDERS MAY GET WET Do you plan to take a ride on a state ferry any time soon?

Do you mind potentially getting wet?

In response to a recent records request, Washington State Ferries (WSF) confi rmed that while there are enough life preservers on board every ferry to match passenger load, the same cannot be said for life raft capacity. This means that, should a ferry need to be abandoned (sink), some ferry passengers may get to audition for the WSF’s ver-sion of Survivor until another ferry can come and pluck them out of the Puget Sound’s chilly waters.

Bainbridge/Seattle Tacoma 2,500 1,200 1,300Bainbridge/Seattle Wenatchee 2,500 1,200 1,300Seattle/Bremerton Hyak 2,000 600 1,400Seattle/Bremerton Kitsap 1,200 600 600Fant/Vashon/SWorth Issaquah 1,200 600 600Fant/Vashon/SWorth Tillikum 1,200 600 600Fant/Vashon/SWorth Klahowya 816 600 216Pt. Defi ance/Tahlequah Rhododendron 546 600 0Edmonds/Kingston Puyallup 2,500 1,200 1,300Edmonds/Kingston Spokane 2,000 600 1,400Mukilteo/Clinton Cathlamet 1,200 600 600Mukilteo/Clinton Kittitas 1,200 600 600Port Townsend/Keystone Klickitat 600 600 0Anacortes/S’Juan Yakima 2,000 600 1,400Anacortes/S’Juan Kaleetan 2,000 600 1,400Anacortes/S’Juan Sealth 1,200 600 600

Route Vessel MaxPassengers

Life RaftCapacity (MES) Defi ciency

Consider the following WSF life raft statistics:

If the total capacity is less than the number of passengers and crew, crew members and passenger “assistants” should still be loaded fi rst, followed by any passengers most likely to succumb to hypothermia (elderly, children, disabled persons, etc) and then the healthier passengers. This is essential to minimize the exposure of the most vulnerable passengers, since it is likely that under these conditions some people will need to enter the water when departing the ferry.Imagine what would happen if a private ferry allowed more people on board than

life raft capacity available and then had employees pick and chose which passengers entered the water. Can you say shutdown by the government and pending lawsuits?

No one wants to pull the short end of the stick on this policy. Most ferry riders prefer that WSF staff not be placed in the position of deciding who gets on board a life raft and who gets to try their hand at bobbing in the Sound.

Davis-Bacon acts during that same era. These laws mandate that all state construction projects, including K-12 school building and renovation, be subject to prevailing wage restrictions.

Many construction contractors are small and “open shop” (meaning they don’t force their workers to pay tribute to a labor union to keep their jobs). To receive a Davis-

Bacon contract, construction companies must expose themselves to high compliance costs, constant threats of union litigation, and persistent union harassment (not to mention having to pay infl ated wages and put up with ineffi cient work rules foisted on them by the union). These costs are all passed on to the taxpayer in the form of infl ated construction costs.

“A Davis-Bacon suspension could easily save the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.”

by S. Alex BohlerBacking Down on Davis-Bacon

T

Continued on page 9

S

by Jason Mercier

8 LIVING LIBERTY

in the freest 20 percent of countries is 10 times what it is in the least free countries. Those latter countries need property rights, free markets, honest courts, and low taxes—not foreign aid.

And reporters need new glasses, to let them see the

evidence in front of them rather than relying on their outmoded assumptions.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute (www.cato.org) and author of Libertarian-ism: A Primer.

oo many journalists seem unable to break free of their old assumptions, even when new evidence

should cause some new thinking. Three articles in the Sept. 22 edition of the Washington Post endorsed the view that giving more money to poor people and

poor countries can solve the problem of domestic and global poverty. It’s remarkable that so many smart people in our society are unaffected by the evidence that such transfer programs just don’t work.

In a front-page article, two reporters talked about the destitute people fl eeing Hurricane Katrina and wondered if America would fi nally face the problem of poverty. They quoted a foundation president who lamented that Americans “ignore the problems of poverty” until a catastrophe happens. They suggested that only a renewed “War on Poverty” could both help the poor and tell us whether Republicans are ready and able to govern.

A column by David Broder, the dean of Washington journalists, likewise deplored the miserly treatment of the poor. Even Lyndon Johnson, he said, the architect of the War on Poverty, “diverted the resources it required to the other war, in Vietnam.”

Meanwhile, a Post editorial called for more aid to the governments of poor countries. It suggested that rich countries measure their commitment to development by a benchmark that emphasizes the amount of aid along with trade, investment, and other criteria.

In every case the assumption that transfer payments are the solution is not even explicitly stated; it’s just taken for granted. But where’s the evidence supporting this for welfare and foreign aid?

The United States has spent $9 trillion (in current dollars) on welfare programs since President Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965. Critics have challenged this fi gure, saying it includes more than welfare alone. It does include more than Aid to Families with Dependent Children, now known (hopefully) as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); it also includes food stamps; Medicaid; the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); utilities assistance under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); housing assistance under a variety of programs, including public housing and Section 8 Rental Assistance; and the free commodities program. Clearly, those are all transfer programs for the poor.

Look at Louisiana alone: Michael Tanner, author of The Poverty of Welfare, writes, “The federal government has spent nearly $1.3 billion on cash welfare (TANF) in Louisiana since the start of the Bush administration. That doesn’t count nearly $3 billion in food stamps. Throw in public housing, Medicaid, Child Care Development Fund, Social Service Block Grant and more than 60 other federal anti-poverty programs, and we’ve spent well over $10 billion fi ghting poverty in Louisiana.”

If all that spending didn’t cure poverty, then surely more spending isn’t the answer. Indeed, maybe it’s

the problem. Welfare and other aid programs ensnare people, leading them to become dependent on their monthly check rather than fi nding jobs and starting businesses. In 1960, just before the Great Society’s dramatic increases in welfare programs, the out-of-

wedlock birth rate in the United States was 5 percent. After 30 years of rising welfare benefi ts, the rate was 32 percent; young women had come to see the welfare offi ce, not a husband, as the best provider. Welfare created a cycle of illegitimacy, fatherlessness, crime, more illegitimacy, and more welfare.

Likewise, the United States has spent over $1 trillion on foreign aid. And yet, the Clinton administration reported that “despite decades of foreign assistance, most of Africa and parts of Latin America, Asia and the Middle East are economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago.” Government-to-government aid has tended to strengthen governments in poor countries at the expense of business and individuals and has made governments increasingly dependent on their rich lenders. Few countries have “graduated” from aid to self-suffi ciency. After all that aid, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research study, sub-Saharan Africa is actually poorer than it was 30 years ago.

It’s not even that the Post reporters weren’t aware of the facts. In the 19th paragraph, the front-page story notes that “there are more than 80 poverty-related programs, which in 2003 cost $522 billion.” The next line reads, “Yet despite those programs, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty.”

Maybe “despite” is the wrong word. The reporters should consider the possibility that the sentence should read “Because of those programs, 37 million Americans continue to live in poverty.”

Similarly, the editorial notes that other policies such as free trade and liberal immigration laws may benefi t poor countries more than government-to-government aid. But the editorial writers still can’t break free of the idea that giving taxpayers’ money to bad governments will help their oppressed citizens.

It’s time for new thinking about poor people and poor countries. Transfer payments don’t work; they trap both people and countries in a state of dependence instead of self-reliance.

Markets work. People who get a job—any job—and stick with it until they fi nd a better one will stay out of the welfare-and-poverty trap. But welfare is a powerful lure away from the world of work.

Markets work internationally, too. If you rate all the countries in the world by the degree of economic freedom they have, that turns out also to be a ranking of their prosperity. Per capita income

by David BoazTime for new thinking about poverty

T

Taxpayers expect and deserve a government that operates effi ciently, effectively and economically. These are the critical underpinnings of govern-ment accountability. So how are Washington’s elected offi cials doing?

To help answer this question, we’ve launched a new website and will be releasing periodic “diet tips” for government, which highlight question-able uses of our tax dollars. When appropriate, we will also be sharing examples of elected offi cials who cut wasteful spending or otherwise save tax-payers money.

If you would like to receive our Waste Watchers e-mail update, please sign up at:http://www.effwa.org/main/page.php?number=1

All Waste Watchers e-mail updates will also be posted on this page:http://www.effwa.org/wastewatchers

SIGN UP FOR WASTE WATCHERS UPDATE

Sign

up

for W

as

te Watchers Update

Be informed about how your hard-earned tax dollars are being spent!

Sign up today!

The United States has spent $9 trillion (in current dollars) on welfare programs since President Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965 . . . If all that spending didn’t cure poverty, then surely more spending isn’t the answer. Indeed, maybe it’s the problem.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

recent whistle-blower trial has put the media spotlight on potential corruption within Wash-

ington State Ferries (WSF), but behind the scenes, au-dit fi ndings point to a long history of mismanagement and waste of taxpayer dollars.

The trial focused on fraudulent workplace practices, such as studies that resulted in tens of thousands of dollars being added to some employees’ annual salaries. The studies included an oil study that allegedly had no testing equipment and another on the best color for employee coveralls. Participants in these, and similar studies, were allegedly chosen based upon their affi liation with a close-knit group of supervisors.

Former employees also allege that overtime was given to a few select workers in exchange for monetary kickbacks to supervisors; employees who questioned this policy were no longer offered overtime.

These problems should come as no surprise, given that WSF has failed nearly two decades of fi nancial audits because ticket-sellers mishandled cash. Every year, the agency claimed to be working on the problem, but it continued unabated. And mishandled cash isn’t the only recurring problem found in WSF audits.

According to the 2002 statewide audit, WSF exceeded the maximum travel reimbursement provided by contracts and lacked adequate documentation for reimbursements. Two employees “may have been paid at least $100,000 in excess of what was allowed by the contract.” WSF agreed to correct the problems.

The 2003 audit, however, found the problems had not yet been corrected. This time, three employees

had been overpaid $67,110 due to incor-rect starting points for travel reimburse-ments and intention-al overpayments for

some crew travel. The agency refused to require more detail for reimbursements and claimed the right to use unwritten, undocumented contract terms. In fact, WSF even claimed that it would be illegal to document the un-written policies, saying it would “constitute an improper unilateral action.”

WSF also claimed to be investigating home terminal designations, which had caused an overpayment of $7,912. Home terminal designation refers to the closest ferry terminal to an employee’s home, which is used to determine their commuter distance for reimbursements.

by Drew Gaut

A

Waste Watchers

Free-market advocates argue that prevailing wage laws destroy what are called “equilibrium” wages—those balanced by supply and demand. When wages are artifi cially increased above what the marketplace would naturally support, employers cut back on projects, outsource projects overseas, or simply go out of business. Thus, prevailing wage laws decrease overall employment and create a tougher environment for employers to grow and expand their businesses.

Supporters of prevailing wage laws claim that Davis-Bacon requirements provide a “living wage” for construction workers. That argument certainly sells for those who believe that government should determine what a “living wage” is, and that taxpayers should pay for artifi cial wage supports for public sector construction projects. But there is little evidence that prevailing wage does anything besides increase costs to the taxpayer and profi t union bosses.

Most trained economists believe that prevailing wage laws are antiquated and ineffi cient wage supports born

out of the anxiety and tumult of the Great Depression. They drive up construction costs for the taxpayer, limit competition and suffocate innovation. The law not only reduces effi ciency, it also serves as a reliable stream of revenue for labor bosses, since union bosses get a “cut” of every paycheck in the form of forced dues.

It should be noted that many of the same liberal, tax-and-spend politicians from both parties who pressured the President to reverse his earlier suspension also benefi t greatly from union largess, in the form of political contributions, “member communication”, and “get out the vote” drives.

A 1999 Mackinac Center for Public Policy study pointed out that in the 30 months that Michigan’s prevailing wage was suspended (during a legal challenge), there was a 48 percent increase in the rate of new construction jobs. The study also found that more than 11,000 new jobs were created, directly attributed to the law’s suspension. Many of those new jobs were fi lled by blacks and other minorities, who are often grossly underrepresented in public sector construction projects. The same study also found that taxpayers are spending

an additional $200 million dollars per year in infl ated school construction and maintenance costs since the law was reinstituted.

University of Maryland economics professor Armand J. Thieblot once estimated that if federal prevailing wage laws were suspended for a period of fi ve years, taxpayers could save over $3 billion in federal highway construction costs and small contractors could save almost $100 million in compliance costs. These numbers pale in comparison to what could be saved to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

President Bush should not allow himself to be bullied by a handful of pro-union Republicans, liberal activists, and the mainstream media.

President Bush should take a principled stand on full Davis-Bacon repeal in the next congressional session. If he explains the negative impact of artifi cial wage supports on rebuilding efforts in the Gulf States, the American people will likely stand behind him. Anything else would be a sad and avoidable capitulation to Big Labor.

In the 2004 audit, some employees were still being overcompensated. Amazingly, WSF offi cials claimed that the agency’s failure to correct the problem in the past was a compelling reason to continue overpayments. WSF agreed to attempt to formalize the policy during contract renegotiations, rather than correct the problem. Oddly enough, the 2003 audit had warned that the continued overpayment could “create a risk that the Ferries Division could become obligated to continue the payments.” Looks like that audit fi nding was right.

With informal, unwritten policies and a history of ignoring audits, it should come as no surprise to see WSF in court. The big question is whether the agency will fi nally be held accountable for its waste and mismanagement.

"WSF has failed nearly two decades of financial audits because ticket-sellers mishandled cash."

"...employees also allege that overtime was given to a few select workers in exchange for monetary kickbacks to supervisors; employees who questioned this policy were no longer offered overtime."

• Work with the state auditor on related compliance audits

• Identify best-and-worst practice readiness examples• Create a report and scorecard on our fi ndings to

include the last date of plan review, chain of com-mand, the last time the plan was tested, and weak-nesses identifi ed and remedied (or not)

• Identify arenas outside the core competencies/func-tions of government where the private sector can move more effi ciently and effectively

We will review costs of emergency compliance against current state and local jurisdiction expenditures. Too

often, taxpayer funds are spent on non-core functions like economic activity, versus core functions like public health and safety.

Help defi ne the lasting Katrina LegacyWe expect this project will cost approximately $38,000

over the next year. I hope you will check our website frequently for updates. We’ll include new information in our newsletter as well. If you are interested in helping pay for this project, please designate the Katrina Legacy Project on your donation.

Like thousands of our Gulf Coast neighbors, Tanya and her dad have been confronted with the need to see beyond the immediate pain to the promise of the future. Healthy adults always want to surmount the

impossibility of the moment because life is precious, and there’s another generation to consider.

In reality, there would be no reason for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation to exist if it weren’t for the next generation. Of course, we get frustrated with the bloated and parasitical condition of government today. But it is our duty to try to make it right; after all, our children will inherit what we leave behind.

So, we’re not very casual about our commitment to help restore limited government, individual responsibility and the free enterprise system. Combined with good character, this is a marvelous and necessary legacy to leave for our sons and daughters. Thank you for partnering with us to accomplish this.

Davis-Bacon continued from page 7. . .

Unexpected Opporunities continued from page 6. . .

Whistle-blower trial is just the latest sign of trouble with the ferries

10 LIVING LIBERTY

n a bold move not often seen among public sector employees, a group of teachers in Sprague, Wash-

ington, recently voted to decertify their union. Although Sprague is a small school district, the defection from the Washington Education Association has caused sub-stantial ripples around the state. In fact, it is one of the fi rst school districts in the entire country to decertify in recent times.

“It is liberating to declare our independence from the

teacher unions,” said Jim Dishon, leader of the decerti-fi cation effort. “Most of our teachers balked at paying $700 in annual dues to the union, much of which would have helped fund social and political agendas which were often personally offensive.”

Dishon was referring to the whole litany of activist po-litical views espoused by both the Washington Education Association and its parent group, the National Education Association. These policies include support for gay mar-riage, strict gun control and abortion on demand. The NEA was rocked recently when an internal poll was leaked to education reformers that revealed 50 percent of NEA members label themselves as “conservative.”

The Sprague teachers have formed the Sprague-Lamont Professional Educators Association, a voluntary profes-sional group that neither demands dues as a condition of employment nor harasses dissenters. Teachers will be free to support or oppose the association without fear of

reprisal or retribution. Northwest Professional Educators helps independent teachers obtain liability insurance, legal services, professional development resources and teacher scholarships.

Under Washington law, the teachers’ union is given “monopoly bargaining” authority, which gives union of-fi cials the authority to negotiate on behalf of all teachers for wages and benefi ts. This so-called “exclusive repre-sentation” privilege is the foundation of all union power. It gives unions the ability to extract dues from workers as a condition of employment.

Workers who object to union policies can supposedly “resign,” but in reality, they are still compelled to pay a percentage of their income to the union.

Decertifi cation, a process by which a majority of work-ers vote to throw out their union, rarely happens in Wash-ington. Part of the reason for this is that once a union gets entrenched, it bestows enough privileges on selected workers to create a loyal constituency. Such privileges include union junkets to prime vacation spots, union-sanctioned time off, and sweetheart deals for friends or relatives.

However, the union is just as comfortable using a stick as it is a carrot with employees who dare to question its legitimacy.

The decertifi cation process itself is diffi cult. Indepen-dent workers often fi nd that even suggesting decertifi ca-tion to their co-workers and superiors is met with pro-found hostility from pro-union workers and shop stew-ards. Reformers also have to contend with the union mis-information machine, which goes into overdrive the mo-ment decertifi cation is raised as a possibility. State work-ers and public school teachers who actively campaign to end union dominance have even been harrassed.

Even given the obstacles, could the Sprague vote her-ald a new wave of decertifi cation drives by employees fed up with union arrogance?

Interestingly enough, a 62 person bargaining unit at the Washington Department of Ecology has recently voted 40-22 to decertify. The battle at Ecology has been raging for months in a back and forth scrimmage pitting envi-

ronmental scientists against the Washington Federation of State Employees. Many state workers feel the union has been especially deceptive and heavy-handed in its most recent dealings with non-union workers over the new, statewide employment contract.

The [Washington Federation of State Employees] WFSE is still under investigation by the Public Employ-ment Relations Commission for not adequately publi-cizing the new contracts contents, especially the forced dues clause, and the election date itself. Restricting this kind of important information is a standard union tactic designed to suppress worker turnout during ratifi cation time.

Perhaps the strongest challenge to union monopoly bargaining authority has happened at Washington State University, where Bargaining Trades Unit 3 (Local 1066) told the union “thanks, but no thanks.” The vote at WSU was 121-86 for decertifi cation, a strong and un-equivocal statement against union boss dominance of the bargaining process at Washington’s second largest uni-versity. These workers will no longer be compelled to pay dues just to keep their jobs. Go Cougs!

These recent defections may point to a trend. In past de-cades, the stream of workplace information was largely controlled by union operatives and a sympathetic main-stream media. Today, with the rise of alternative media, the internet, and free-market think tanks like EFF, inde-pendent workers who question the union status quo have access to the facts.

Workers should have the right of economic self-de-termination. This includes the right to decide whether to accept or reject union representation. Successful de-certifi cation efforts like these will only embolden other independent-minded teachers and state workers to reject union coercion and form their own voluntary profes-sional groups.

If you know of a courageous teacher or state worker in-terested in leading a decertifi cation effort in their work-place, have them contact someone from EFF’s Labor Policy Center. We can give them the tools and strategy needed to fi ght back.

by Michael TannerThank God for American health care

Twenty years of public policy research on health care recently came home to me in a very personal way

when I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Because I live in a country with a free-market health

care system, I had a choice of treatments: surgery, external radiation, brachytherapy. I was able to fi nd the doctor and hospital that I felt most comfortable with. As a result, I can expect to live a long, healthy, cancer-free life.

But if I lived elsewhere, the outcome might not have been the same.

In most countries with national health insurance, the preferred treatment for prostate cancer is…to do nothing. Prostate cancer is a slow moving disease. Most patients are older and will live for several years after diagnosis. Therefore, it is not cost-effective in a world of socialized medicine to treat the disease too aggressively. The approach saves money, but comes at a more human cost.

Even though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in other countries, we are less likely to die from the disease. Less than one out of fi ve American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men will. Even in Canada, a quarter of men diagnosed with prostate cancer die from the disease.

The one common characteristic of all national health care systems is that they ration care. Sometimes they ration it explicitly, denying certain types of treatment altogether. More often, they ration more indirectly, imposing global budgets or other cost constraints that limit the availability of high-tech medical equipment or impose long waits on

patients seeking treatment. Consider this: seven out of ten Canadian provinces report sending prostate cancer patients to the United States for radiation treatment. In Great Britain, roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist.

There are problems with the American health care system. Too many Americans lack health insurance and/or are unable to afford the type of care that I received. We need to do more to lower health care costs and increase access to care. Both patients and providers need better and more useful information. The system is riddled with waste and the quality of care is uneven. Government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid threaten future generations with an enormous burden of debt and taxes.

Yet we should never forget that America offers the highest quality health care in the world. Most of the world’s top doctors, hospitals, and research facilities are located in the United States. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. Half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years have been developed by U.S. companies. In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years. By almost any measure, if you are diagnosed with a serious illness, the United States is the place you want to receive treatment. That is

why tens of thousands of patients from around the world come to this country every year for treatment.

The guiding principle of health care reform should be the Hippocratic admo-nition, “First do no harm.” Those call-ing for national health care in America would destroy the things that make American health care so good. More government regulation, subsidies, and control would simply drain the medical marketplace of the quality, dynamism and innovation that saves lives.

What American health care needs is more choice and competition, not less. We’ve started down that route through Health Savings Accounts and other market-oriented reforms, but more needs to be done. My Cato colleague, Michael Cannon, and I recently pub-

lished a new book, Healthy Competition: What’s Hold-ing Back American Health Care and How to Free It, out-lining a comprehensive set of market-oriented reforms that would make health care more affordable, expand consumer choice, and preserve the quality of care. We hope it will serve as a starting point in the political de-bate to come.

But, for now, I for one say, God bless American health care.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute.

by S. Alex Bohler, J.D.Decertification: a growing trend for public employees?

I

“The [Washington Federation of State Employees] WFSE is still

under investigation by the Public Employment Relations Commission for not adequately publicizing the new contracts contents, especially the forced dues clause, and the

election date itself.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

e remain very grateful to the generous investment of several EFF supporters who have allowed us to pay (in full!) for our

building and its needed renovations. Now we hope to purchase con-ference room furnishings, EFF building signage and some inspira-tional, mission-focused wall décor. The estimated price tag on those items is $5,000. Would you consider a tax-free donation to help put the fi nal touches on our EFF facility? If so, please annotate your donation as a “Building Fund” contribution. Then, when you’re in the Olympia area, come to visit so we can show off the results! We’re in the Fir Grove Business Park, 2403 Pacifi c Ave SE, Olympia.

Are you handy with tools? Would you be willing to share your time and talents with EFF? We are occasionally in need of help with small jobs at our offi ce building. If you can help, please contact our Offi ce Manager, Gail Wells.

n 1997, Washington reformed welfare by imple-menting WorkFirst, a program aimed to help those

on welfare achieve self-suffi ciency by requiring them to participate in work-related activities. By encourag-ing individuals to act responsibly, instead of relying on the government to support them, hundreds of thousands of people seized control of their own destinies and got jobs, not handouts. This cut WorkFirst’s caseload in half and made both Democrats and Republicans recognize the reform’s success.

In accomplishing this, WorkFirst pursued the following goals: provide assistance to needy families so that children can remain in their own homes; end the dependence on government benefi ts by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encourage two-parent families. WorkFirst has since strayed from strict adherence to these objectives.

One successful reform does not preclude the need for future reform. In June, Governor Gregoire established a workgroup to reexamine WorkFirst, fi nd ways to improve the program, and save the $85 million necessary to ensure fi nancial stability. The workgroup met six times this summer and made recommendations that, if implemented, could save the program $80 to $95 million biennially.

Unfortunately, Governor Gregoire has decided only to pursue $40 million of proposed savings; she has requested $50 million from the legislature to cover WorkFirst’s remaining shortfall. Regardless of the governor’s half-hearted support, the following proposals deserve to be fully implemented:• WorkFirst should focus on transitioning parents in the

program to employment and setting consistent per-formance standards to meet this goal throughout the state.

Drifting away from a consistent focus on moving parents to employment, WorkFirst has suffered from a lack of oversight and follow-through. By setting performance standards, employees, participants and supervisors will know what is expected of them and how to gauge success. • Use Local Planning Areas (LPAs) to share “best prac-

tices” that lead to self-reliance. Comprised of local community leaders, an LPA allows

members to design policies to maximize the effect of WorkFirst dollars. This directive will encourage LPAs to come together and share knowledge of what works and what does not. Using local knowledge to apply things that do work and avoid the mistakes of others will help WorkFirst better meet its goal of transitioning individuals to employment and off welfare. • Refer more clients, more quickly to job preparation

and job search. When clients fi rst go to WorkFirst, they can either be

sent to job search or referred to non-job search services. The workgroup found a subtle, but consistent, relationship between the rate at which clients were referred to job

search and caseload reduction. For example: the Port Angeles offi ce only referred 23 percent of its entrants to job search and saw its caseload rise by 10 percent, whereas, the Shelton offi ce referred 49 percent of its entrants to job search and its caseload dropped by 35 percent.

The workgroup concluded that an entry-to-job-search rate of 45 percent was reasonable historically. If clients statewide had been referred to job search at that rate and being placed in jobs at the current rate, an average of 252 more clients would have been placed in jobs each month in Fiscal Year 2005. This fi nding does not surprise those in the private sector; as people are encouraged to apply

for jobs, they are more likely to obtain employment. • Raise the maximum full-family sanction from 40 per-

cent to 100 percent after six months of non-participa-tion in WorkFirst programs.

Currently, the maximum penalty for an individual who does not participate in WorkFirst’s programs is a 40 percent reduction in the family’s grant amount (or the individual’s grant, whichever is more). In June 2005, there were 5,931 clients in sanction status. Increasing the sanction will increase individuals’ incentives to participate in WorkFirst’s programs. The programs are designed to foster self-suffi ciency, so increased participation will help more individuals obtain fi nancial independence and reduce society’s burden for those who refuse to help themselves.• Move the eligibility for subsidized childcare from 200

percent to 175 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. State programs use the Federal Poverty Level to

measure individuals’ eligibility for assistance. This provision would limit eligibility for childcare subsidies to those families earning 175 percent or less of the Federal Poverty Level. The issue is not whether these people “need” the money, but that there are limited funds available for the program. Every family prioritizes its budget and every government program needs to as well. • Reduce staffi ng to refl ect the increasing number of

self-suffi cient clients, because of the above proce-dures.

If there are fewer people eligible for WorkFirst because WorkFirst is meeting its goal of helping people to be self-suffi cient, then fewer staffers are necessary.

The workgroup heard testimony from a union-sponsored focus group of the Washington State Federation of State Employees (people who work in WorkFirst) who also made suggestions for reform. Their recommendations included:• Crack down on childcare fraud.

The employees said that childcare fraud is rampant. One type of fraud occurs because a parent is eligible for a childcare subsidy when looking for a job. Many recipients do not look for a job in the 32-40 hours a week their children are in state-funded daycare. This takes money away from those who would appropriately use it. Childcare subsidies ($251.9 million) and childcare quality ($24.3 million) represent 33.4 percent of the existing budget, and fraud in this area deprives WorkFirst of funds it needs to get people to work. The governor and the legislature should support those who fi ght childcare fraud and institute more effective methods of policing.

Fighting childcare fraud will not be easy, but the most diffi cult projects are often the ones with the greatest results and benefi ts to those involved. • WorkFirst should remove clients who are in “long-

term sanction” and delay their attempts to reapply. In order to receive funding, clients must actively

help themselves become employable or look for a job. Recipients who do not meet this standard are placed on “long-term sanction.” Terminating long-term sanctioned clients from receiving benefi ts will give them an incentive to help themselves and encourage clients who are approaching sanctions to start participating.

The commission also heard suggestions about how other states spent federal welfare dollars. In North Carolina, individuals who have been on welfare for two years are removed for one year before being eligible for two years of additional payments. Program reviews showed only a handful of individuals returned for the second two years. North Carolina’s reform could represent Washington’s next step in giving people the incentive to work and earn their own income.

EFF commends the workgroup for its efforts and Governor Gregoire for commissioning this much-needed review. However, EFF cannot commend the governor’s failing to accomplish her own goal of “fi nancial stability,” especially when her own commission made the necessary recommendations. Another tragedy of the governor’s leadership failure is that WorkFirst will encourage fewer people to enjoy the benefi ts of economic freedom, allowing them instead to remain in the malaise of government dependence.

Leadership is not just the ability to identify the solution; leadership is the ability to implement the solution. We wish that Governor Gregoire would choose to use her leadership ability and support full, not partial, reform.

by Victor JoecksWorkFirst reforms would ensure financial stability; Gregoire only goes halfway

I

Help Wanted

W

FinishingTouches

The governor and the legislature should support those who fi ght childcare fraud and institute more effective methods of policing.Fighting childcare fraud will not be easy, but the most diffi cult projects are often the ones with the greatest results and benefi ts to those involved.

12 LIVING LIBERTY

Yes, I WANT TO INVEST IN THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Dear Friend of EFF,

While we welcome every gift, our greatest need is reliable monthly support. It is imperative for reaching our goals. Please consider monthly giving as a way to invest in the cause of freedom. Our secure e-Giving System ensures that more of your contribution goes directly to our work.

Cordially,

Please mail or fax in this form (fax 360-352-1874) or call 360-956-3482. We will send you a confi rmation letter for your records.

Your Donations to EFF are Tax-Deductible!

Bank Debit/Credit Card Donation Authorization I request my bank or credit card company to transfer funds in the amount of $ each monthuntil further notice. I understand that I am in full control of my donation, and that I can decide to make any changes or discontinue the service at any time by calling 360-956-3482 or writing to EFF.

Signature Date(required for bank and credit card donations)

Checking Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided check)

Savings Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided deposit slip)

Please indicate your preferred withdrawal date: 1st 10th 20th

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMERICAN EXPRESS

Credit card # Expiration date:

Personal Information

Name Company

Address City, State, Zip

Phone E-mail

...BECAUSE FREEDOM MATTERS!

Electronic-giving (“e-Giving”) allows you to automatically donate electronically to EFF from your bank account or credit card. No more remembering to send checks or buying envelopes and stamps. It saves time! It saves work! It’s easy to use! For more information on scheduling an e-Giving donation, please contact Juliana McMahan at 360-956-3482 or visit us online atwww.effwa.org/contribution.php.

wwwe-Givinge-Giving

I would like to give a one time gift of $