A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

ost Americans suffer from back pain at some point in their lives, due in part to the heavy tax

burden citizens of this country must shoulder. That hyperbolic comment aside, there can be little doubt that Americans pay a lot of taxes at all levels: income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security and Medi-care taxes, “sin” taxes and more.

That much is certain when looking at Americans for Tax Reform’s calculation of Cost of Government Day, the day on which “Americans stop working to pay the costs of taxation, deficit spending and regulations by the federal and state governments.” This year, the national Cost of Government Day was July 16, with the average American working until that day to pay the full costs of federal, state and local government spending and regu-latory costs. That translates into the government con-suming an astonishing 53.9 percent of national income.

Here in Washington State, we fare worse than the national average. Washingtonians toiled until July 22 just to pay for all taxes and regulations imposed by fed-eral, state and local governments. In other words, Wash-ington State residents worked 203 days—more than half of the year—before they even began to pay for food, gas, housing and other necessities of life. Among the states, Washington’s Cost of Government Day ranked fifth highest in the nation, behind California, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Citizens of this state may not be surprised, however, because many of Washington’s tax rates are the highest, or among the highest, in the nation. The state’s gas tax of 37.5 cents per gallon is the highest in the country. At 16.43 percent, state and local wireless taxes and fees in Washington are the second highest in the nation. Our 6.5 percent state sales tax is the sixth-highest in the country.

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

creative distruction 3 legacy of the american auto industry 9

LIVING LIBERTYDECEMBER 2008 | WWW.EFFWA.ORG A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

government bailout exceeds cost of wwii 8

M

HEAVY IS THETAX THAT WEARS YOU DOWN

Nationwide, the tax burden may actually be worse than it appears. In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson found that the average marginal tax rate in America, when all taxes are included, is about 40 percent, regardless of income. Ear-lier studies by the Congressional Budget Office showed lower figures. However, those studies failed to include

state income taxes (which, thankfully, Washington State does not have), sales taxes and the offsetting benefits of major government programs.

“We have a national flat tax,” wrote financial newspa-per columnist and author Scott Burns in response to the study, “albeit one with bumps and potholes.”

Many people—perhaps owing to hidden taxes and the often incomprehensible quality of tax codes—don’t

by Brett Davis

seem to fully grasp the nature of taxation. How many people, for example, realize that a tax refund is merely the money you overpaid in taxes during the year? You’re simply getting back your own money that you paid in excess of what you owed in taxes!

Under our current complex tax structure, it is almost impossible for citizens to determine how much in taxes they actually pay in a year. Although many tax rates

are currently available from various sources, locating and calculating the wide number of taxes imposed by various taxing districts is a task undertaken by only the most zealous number-crunchers. Hidden costs, like the Business & Occupation (B&O) tax that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher retail prices, are not available.Continued on next page

2 LIVING LIBERTY

34

6789101112

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

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

VOLUME 18, Issue 12

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue

Publisher:Tom Henry

Editor:Judy Cook

Layout:Joel Sorrell

December 2008

TAX Continued from page 1 . . .

Next spring, in an effort to assist people in more accu-rately determining how much they pay in state and local taxes, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation will host a searchable website where, by entering your zip code, you will find out the amount and type of taxes you pay in your specific area. You’ll be able to see how that amount compares to neighboring counties and cities.

Ten years ago, the idea of a free, searchable database for government spending was not feasible. Yet, today, the federal government and more than twenty states have launched, or are in the process of launching, spend-ing databases. Budget transparency was the first wave of a new kind of accountability that has come about as a direct result of new technology.

We believe the next wave in the trend toward increased government accountability is tax transparency—mak-ing state and local tax rates completely open and acces-

sible to the public. It took years to get governments on board with budget transparency and that battle is still raging. The war for tax transparency will be much more difficult, given that it does not lend itself as readily to bipartisan support.

Taxpayers should not be forced to wait for governments to act on tax transparency, if they ever do. The technol-ogy is available now. With the ever-expanding promises of politicians, it is imperative people understand the real cost of so-called “free” government services.

Among all the confusion about taxes, one thing is certain: America is not undertaxed. In his Poor Rich-ard’s Almanack, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income.”

If only.

“ Budget transparency was the first wave of a new kind of accountability that has come about as a direct result of new technology.”

Merry ChristMas!@FROM THE STAFF OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

“The problem with socialism is

that you eventually run out of

other people’s money.”

– Margaret Thatcher

3 LETTER FROM LYNN CREATIVE DESTRUCTION

4 READING THE FEDERALIST PART xI THE JUDICIARY 6 THE GOLDFISH WHO ALMOST VOTED AND OTHER VARIOUS VOTE-BY-MAIL TALES

7 WASHINGTON STATE BAR REVIEW BRUSH UP ON YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SECRET LABOR DEALS A GROWING CONCERN

8 GOVERNMENT BAILOUT ExCEEDS COST OF WWII FAT COWS AND SKINNY COWS 9 THE LEGACY OF THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY, FREEDOM OF FAILURE? 10 KEEPING GOVERNMENT OUT OF PARTISAN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING TAxPAYERS HELP FUND BOTH SIDES OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS

11 IRA ROLLOVER PROVISIONS REINSTATED

12 2009 YOUNG LEADERS INTERNSHIP PROGRAM DIARY OF A FREEDOM LOVING MOM LOOKING FOR A LOW-COST, HIGH VALUE CHRISTMAS GIFT?

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

W W W . L I B E R T Y L I V E . O R G

CHECK OUT

OUR BLOG!POST YOUR OPINION ON THE ISSUES!

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LY NNby Lynn Harsh

creative destructionhe large lump on my head reminded me for days of the pain that was about to come. It had been a

miscalculation all the way around: for me, the distance between my head and the cupboard. For financial insti-tutions, the distance between highly leveraged profits and insolvency.

It was early July, and I was sleeping in a travel trailer in the backyard, yearning for a real bed in my almost-finished-remodeled house. The television was on, an apparent holdover from a restless night (Have you ever slept under a raccoon-romancing tree?) It was barely dawn, and commentators on CNBC were breaking some news. Once again, it wasn’t good.

Suddenly, I knew that a financial cascade was about to begin. Not the kind of fall that would flip a kayak; the kind that would flip a cruise ship. I sat up in bed quickly, a bad thing to do in a travel trailer where the space between a pillow and the cupboard above is three feet.

Fast forward five months later. Many of our major donors and dear friends have lost millions. We are engulfed by a credit crisis, record volatility and global recession. Consumer confidence is down and unemployment is up. Most of our elected officials are making the kind of financial decisions we would expect from a spoiled teenager.

Our staff has shrunk. Key positions are vacant and will remain empty for some time. Salary increases are small or non-existent. Spending has been reduced, all contracts have been reviewed and non-essential expenditures cut, even such things as lunch for our monthly staff meetings.

So…will you call me naïve or unkind if I say I’m full of hope?

Think Reagan, Thatcher and Google. Forty years ago, businesses in England were “owned”

by the state. Unions ran the country. Unemployment was very high and the standard of living had dropped significantly.

Across the pond, we Americans were pummeled by stagflation (high unemployment and inflation.) Nixon’s wage-and-price controls and other short-sighted regulatory policies were making our bad situation worse. Eventually home loans became pricey and hard to get. Gas lines were standard.

I was just a kid during much of this time and can only imagine the stress on my parents and other adults trying to provide for their families.

Both England and America emerged on the other side of the fiscal crisis far healthier than either had been prior. It took time and clear-headed leadership. But it took less time and required less pain than The Great Depression of the 1930s.

T And remember the tech crash of 2000? Remember the talking heads who swept the potential internet explosion off the table like crumbs from a day-old sandwich? They did not foresee that certain algorithms crafted by two Stanford grad students would form the base for a powerful new search engine. In short order, Google became a verb in our economy, increasing productivity many times over.

Crisis has a way of shaving the dross; stripping us down to essentials and helping us focus on the most important things. We find ways to get more value from everything we do. In fact, intellectual entrepreneurs in particular thrive in chaos and crisis. They need problems to solve.

A recent Forbes article written by George Gilder underscored this point. Giving credit to Rich Karlgaard’s wisdom, Gilder wrote this about the economy: “The real source of all growth is human creativity and entrepreneurship, which always comes as a surprise to us, especially in the worst of times.”

I dare say, if we cleared the opacity from all inventions and technological breakthroughs bubbling in the world right now, we would have a near out-of-body experience. The environment for intellectual and product entrepreneurs is richer than ever.

But these entrepreneurs thrive best in a political climate free of punitive taxes and regulations. They

no longer need to stay inside America’s boundaries to succeed. In fact, American universities are full of science, technology, engineering and math students who will leave our country when they graduate for better opportunities elsewhere. The Great Brain Drain is underway.

Furthermore, we have elected a slew of politicians with little understanding about the dangers of most regulations and the counterproductive consequences of high taxes and fees on job producers. We have far more to fear from these people than the risks associated with too few regulations. Contrary to the political babble, our current fiscal mess is principally the result of short-sighted, politically motivated Congressional mandates (regulations)…and our own greed.

In our past, remedies for the thorny problems we face now were executed by strong political leaders—leaders

less concerned about their own political futures than their country’s well-being. I don’t see too many of those people around right now. Citizens could be counted on to rise to the occasion, but on the whole they were better educated and less self-centered than we are now.

So why am I hopeful?For one thing, a crisis is a magnet for leaders. Some

of these leaders will be bad for us, but good people will fill leadership posts all around us, too. True leaders are born for moments like this, and they know it deep inside. To resist this call is to resist the pull of a magnet. Wise, strong people will lead in many homes, businesses, churches, community organizations and some educational institutions. Wise people are already serving in elected offices, but they are outnumbered by foolish leaders. Their time will come.

Furthermore, most people are followers, not leaders. When wise leadership prevails, people follow it, too.

And solutions are created in the minds of economic philosophers like the next Friedrich Hayek, and brilliant grad students like the next Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and life-changing teachers like the next Milton Friedman, and courageous business leaders like the next Fred Smith.

Think tanks like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation have always incubated and promoted solutions that end up in the policy bloodstream.

It’s important to remember that politicians do not create solutions. They do execute policies that lead either to renewed health or deeper muck. Frankly, most of them are muck-machines. We need to get them out of the way as soon as possible, though I suppose more Americans will have to be neck-deep in it before they are willing to elect a new breed.

Make no mistake: I am deeply concerned about our fiscal and cultural trajectory. But I also know that history is full of object lessons in human nature’s destruction and creation cycles. We’ll have more pain, and some of its manifestations will likely surprise us, but rumbling under the surface of our troubles are innovative solutions and determined leaders. You’ll find both here at EFF, in our colleague organizations across the country, and in certain academic institutions dotting the land.

Our message is full of compassion and zeal because we see and experience all of what I have described. Now more than ever, we need to remain on the front lines. Economic realities have made us a leaner group of soldiers, and no doubt we will have more bumps on the head. But we are fit, savvy and know what victory looks like. With your support and involvement, that’s where we’re heading.

“ ...RUmBLING UNDER THE SURfACE Of OUR TROUBLES ARE INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS AND DETERmINED LEADERS.”

4 LIVING LIBERTY

Part XI:

The FederalistReading

Reading The Federalist in 2008The Federalist Papers explain both the reasons for and the workings of the Constitution of the United States. It is “the most powerful body of political thought ever produced in America,” according to historian Rober t Middlekauff. For Americans who believe in the enduring value of the Constitution, The Federalist is an essential resource and a guide.

This is the penultimate essay of a twelve-par t series to help readers understand and appreciate the lasting relevance of this American classic. Living Liber ty presents these monthly essays and encourages you to read The Federalist with us.

by Trent England

F

The JuDiciary

or Israel, there were judges before there were kings. In “Common

Sense,” Thomas Paine recounts victori-ous Gideon’s refusal to become a heredi-tary monarch over Israel. “I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you.” Amer-ica would similarly need no king, wrote Paine, because “In America, LAW IS KING.”

Yet what is this distinction between judge and king? In modern America, sometimes there seems to be very little difference. The founders warned that united legislative, executive, and judicial power is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet our judges have rewritten marriage laws, invented detailed criminal proce-dures, even taken control of school sys-tems. These modern judges appear some-times to have assumed the roll of Plato’s philosopher kings: ultimate arbiters of right and wrong for the society beneath them.

Some observers laud the rise of this “secular papacy.” They see the courts using “powers of dubious legality to uphold the rule of law in American life.” Others see only “judicial tyranny” mangling our constitutional framework, eliminating checks and balances and fed-eralism, and eroding liberty itself. Some

of these current critics hearken back to the original arguments against our fed-eral judiciary, to the Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the Constitu-tion all together.

It was the strength and potential success of the Anti-Federalists that spurred Alex-ander Hamilton to organize the writing of the 85 essays that became The Federal-ist Papers. Under the pen name Publius, James Madison, John Jay, and Hamilton wrote what became the definitive defense and explanation of the Constitution. Hamilton, one of the greatest attorneys in New York City at the time and perhaps in all time, wrote the six essays concern-ing the Constitution’s judiciary. He wrote partly in response to a prominent Anti-Federalist essayist known as Brutus.

Brutus, constitutions, and judgesBrutus predicted and understood the potential power of judicial review, the authority to strike down laws passed in violation of a judge’s understanding of the Constitution. He complained that jus-tices and other federal judges would be impeachable only for criminal offenses and not for poor judgment or disability. Brutus wrote that the Supreme Court would be truly supreme, unlike the Brit-ish High Court where litigants may appeal

to the House of Lords. He predicted that the federal courts, on their own or in concert with Congress, would gradually expand national power at the expense of the states.

Brutus’ arguments appear to be and in some ways are prescient. He recognized how the balance of power between the national and state governments might tip more and more toward the former. And he pointed out, if inexplicitly, the trouble with constitutionalism itself. In the Brit-ish system, there was and is no single written constitution but only a conglom-eration of common law doctrines. The British system is truly a “living constitu-tion,” a combination of judicial and polit-ical decisions which are considered, at a given time, to be fundamental law.

From the very beginning, Americans tended toward a more formal constitu-tionalism. The colonies had charters; some communities had compacts. The year 1776 had seen a flurry of written local declarations of independence from Britain, culminating in the Declaration itself, then a rush to set down new, writ-ten constitutions for the new states. That American political societies would be governed by written constitutions was apparently taken for granted.

The unanimous belief in constitutions nevertheless became a stark divide over the practical meaning of constitution-alism. In an age when people thought about government in terms of a social contract, it made sense to actually write down that contract and to judge subse-quent laws against that first, fundamental agreement. In practical terms, this might produce a healthy conservatism, a con-sistency that would beget respect for the rule of law. Or it might prevent necessary change and lead to a hidebound social order. (Thomas Jefferson famously sug-gested that perhaps constitutions should be rewritten from scratch about every 19 years.)

Another practical reality of written constitutions—of all written legal docu-ments—is that they do not interpret and enforce themselves. A fundamental law still requires a “decider”; it requires a judge. If law is to be king, what does that

say about those who must say what the law is? Brutus and other Anti-Federalists feared that federal judges would become de facto kings under the Constitution. Hamilton and the Federalists believed that the inherent weakness of the courts and the checks created by the Constitu-tion would maintain the separation of powers and preserve liberty.

ProgressivismThe Federalists were, for a long time, correct. The federal judiciary wrangled with the other branches, and the national government during peacetime remained relatively small and unobtrusive until the 20th century, particularly the 1930s. While the Anti-Federalists predicted the eventual rise of the judiciary, they did not foresee the new ideology that would achieve it. The Anti-Federalists warned only of the proposed federal judiciary. Yet the eventual rise of judges would take place as much and perhaps even more in state courts.

The rise in the late 19th century of the ideology of progressivism (a manifesta-tion of the philosophy of Georg Hegel) simply remade American politics and government. Instead of viewing checks and balances as bulwarks of liberty, it saw only roadblocks to progress. Rather than study the past in hopes of gaining wisdom, it denigrated the past as simply that which must be overcome. Individual liberty was deemed insufficient. The Progressives looked to trained, apolitical experts to manage and direct “the state.” The new universities and bureaucracies were sources of such persons, as were the courts.

Progressivism set judges atop a moun-tain and offered them the world. The original idea of a judge was bound up with humility; it presupposed an external standard which the judge was duty bound to follow. A king was a leader, a judge merely an intermediary. Unlike legisla-tors, judges were called to impartiality, to strive to transcend personal beliefs and to judge impartially under law. Accord-ing to the progressives, such subservi-ence was mock humility, holding back society from achieving its full potential.

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

Court each year. Publius also notes that the Constitution does not deprive states of their sovereign immunity, the preexist-ing doctrine that a government cannot be sued without its consent.

Essay No. 82 addresses the relationship between state courts and the new federal courts. State courts will retain all powers they had before the Constitution, writes Publius, unless it is explicitly taken away. They may even be granted authority to hear federal cases or act as de facto fed-eral courts in particular circumstances. Of course, in that case an appeal would still lie to the Supreme Court. Much of this is left, writes Publius, to the discre-tion of the legislature.”

Federalist No. 83: The Judiciary in Relation to Trial by Jury (Hamilton)Publius closes his discussion of the fed-eral judiciary by rebutting the charge that it might infringe upon the right to trial by jury. Because the Constitution requires that “The Trial of all Crimes … shall be by jury,” and is silent about juries for civil trials, some Anti-Federalists charged that it implied an abolition of trial by jury for civil cases. Publius explains at length why that interpretation misconstrues the Constitution. He assures Anti-Federalists and other readers that they all agree on the importance of juries.

Publius walks readers through the diversity of court systems already pres-ent among the states. In short, Publius writes that the Constitution was written to respect and to protect the court sys-tems of the different states.

February | Federalist No. 1: Introduction

March | Federalist Nos. 2–8: Importance of a union of all the states

April | Federalist Nos. 9–14: The size of the union and its economic conditions

May | Federalist Nos. 15–22: Defects of the Articles of Confederation government

June | Federalist Nos. 23–36: Necessity of “energetic” government

July | Federalist Nos. 37–40: The Constitutional Convention and its detractors

August | Federalist Nos. 41–51: Controlling government power

September | Federalist Nos. 52–61: The House of Representatives

October | Federalist Nos. 62–66: The Senate

November | Federalist Nos. 67–77: The Executive

December | Federalist Nos. 78–83: The Judiciary

January 2009 | Federalist Nos. 84–85: The lack of a bill of rights and the conclusion

During 2008, Living Liberty will present monthly essays and encourages you to read The Federalist with us.

“ The mosT powerful boDy of poliTical ThoughT ever proDuceD in america.”

– roberT miDDlekauff

We are pleased to announce that the Reading The FederalisT essays will be available in book form on completion of the series.

Judges could lead society onward rather than simply “stand pat,” in the words Woodrow Wilson (the only college presi-dent ever elected president of the United States).

The Anti-Federalist warnings help explain how the Progressives have hijacked the institutions of the judiciary, at all levels, and the very ideal of a judge. The Federalist essays by Hamilton explain how the federal courts were intended to work and largely how they did work for more than a century. If Americans desire a return to an impartial and modest judi-ciary, Publius defense of the Constitution and of constitutionalism is invaluable.

Federalist Nos. 78–79: The Judicial Department (Hamilton)Publius opens his six papers on the judi-ciary noting that he has already, in ear-lier essays, explained the importance of federal courts. He will not restate those arguments here, and he suggests that most Americans agree on this point “in the abstract.” Yet the particular provi-sions for the judiciary in the proposed Constitution—its form and its pow-ers—have drawn criticism. Publius will address the form of the federal judiciary in Nos. 78 and 79.

After mentioning that he has already defended the mode of appointment for judges and other officers in a previous paper, Publius uses the balance of No. 78 to defend the life tenure of judges. The Constitution provides that all federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” Judges retain their office until they either die, voluntarily resign, or are impeached by the House of Rep-resentatives and convicted by the Senate. Publius points out that this is in accord with New York’s own constitution and those of several others states.

Life tenure for judges, writes Publius, “is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government…. And it is the best expe-dient … to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” The judiciary is naturally weak compared to the other branches; it is the “least danger-ous to the political rights of the Constitu-tion.” The executive appoints officers and expends money, the legislature appropri-ates money and writes laws, but the judi-ciary has “neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

Publius acknowledges, citing Montes-quieu, that the judicial power could be dangerous to liberty, but only if some-how combined with the legislative and executive powers. Alone, its “natural feebleness” calls for the added “firmness and independence” that comes from life tenure. And an independent judiciary is especially important to maintain a lim-ited Constitution, writes Publius. Judicial review, the power to strike down laws of the legislature or acts of the executive that reach beyond constitutional limits, is essential to maintain and enforce those limits.

Rather than elevating the courts, Pub-lius sees judicial review elevating the people and their Constitution and ensur-ing that the legislature is not the sole judge of its own enactments. If the Con-stitution is a fundamental law, how can the judiciary not disregard legislation contrary to the Constitution? Publius

points out that this is merely an extension of the ordinary judicial power to recon-cile conflicting statutes. If judges became corrupted, every one of their duties and not only judicial review could be turned on its head. Accepting this last supposi-tion as likely would argue against any judiciary at all.

Anything less than life tenure would create a schedule of judicial appointments and the possibility of reappointment and would degrade the independence of fed-eral judges. These judges, firm in their independence, will be a bulwark against infringements of minority rights and a check against sudden, pretended consti-tutional changes that have not followed the process for amendment. Lastly, the supply of sufficiently educated and expe-rienced candidates for judicial office will be limited. Life tenure will reduce judicial turnover, persuade the best attor-neys to accept judicial appointments, and improve the overall quality of the federal bench.

The requirement that a judge’s pay be maintained or increased only is the pri-mary topic of No. 79. This is a check on the legislative branch, preventing them from paying judges according to party spirit or other motive that would infringe on judicial independence. Finally, Pub-lius defends the lack of any provision allowing removal of judges for incapac-ity or forcing retirement at some set age. Here, modern medicine has undermined some of Publius’ arguments, for he sug-gests that most men die before their fac-ulties dim. He also warns that a provision allowing removal on vaguer grounds than “high crimes and misdemeanors” might easily become a tool for the legislature or the executive to interfere too much with the judiciary.

Federalist Nos. 80–82: The Powers of the Judiciary and the Distribution of the Judiciary Authority (Hamilton)Publius turns to judicial powers, provid-ing a list of proper cases for a federal judiciary and comparing this to the list of powers granted to the federal courts in the Constitution. According to Publius, federal courts could properly hear the following cases,

Examining Article III of the Consti-tution, Publius finds that each power therein granted falls into one or more of the categories above. He returns in No. 81 to the question of other courts, including whether there ought to be an appeal from the Supreme Court to some other select body or to the legislature. Yet in the cases of concern, where Congress has passed a dubious statute, why would they yield any better result sitting as judges? In fact, any involvement of the political branches in the judicial is liable to infect the courts with the “pestilential breath of faction.”

Publius notes that in his view, the power of impeachment should be a suffi-

cient check for the legislature against the judiciary. He implies that judges might be impeached for more than just crimes, perhaps for more general breaches of good behavior.

Publius discusses the power to cre-ate federal courts beneath the Supreme Court. He notes that only cases involv-ing foreign diplomats or where one or both parties are states does the Supreme Court have “original jurisdiction,” allow-ing parties to bring their case directly to that court. Today, such cases are rare among the 70 or so disputes heard by the

those arising “out of the laws of 1. the United States,”constitutional cases,2. cases where the United States is a 3. party,cases concerning foreign affairs or 4. between different states,admiralty and maritime cases, and5. cases where state courts “cannot 6. be supposed to be impartial and unbiased.”

6 LIVING LIBERTY

t was a typical Tuesday night—which meant I was buried in homework—but such was my lot as a his-

tory undergrad at Hillsdale. And yet here I was, driv-ing for two hours across Michigan on the chilly evening of Nov. 4, 2004. Why? Because I had missed the dead-line for registering for an absentee ballot, of course. So what did I do? I hopped in my car, traversed 90 miles of Midwestern pavement to my old elementary school and voted. Then I waved at my folks, turned around and headed back.

Voting for our political leadership is a tremendous privilege and responsibility so it’s natural that we want to conduct our elections in the most effective way pos-sible. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean the most convenient way possible. In our technology-assisted customer-service culture, it’s easy to find a process flawed simply because it requires more effort than an alternative. This year I had the luxury of filling out my ballot at home with the help of my computer and a deli-cious eggnog steamer. But what do we trade for all this convenience? How much election integrity was sacri-ficed so that I could sit in the comfort of my home for a cozy evening of voting?

Before 1985, Washington voters could only vote-by-mail if they were truly unable to vote at their polling place. That year, the law changed to allow voters to vote-by-mail without providing a reason, but only one elec-tion at a time. In 1993, another change created “perma-nent absentee voters” who would automatically be sent a ballot by mail for each election. Just three years ago, in 2005, counties were allowed to become all vote-by-mail. This year, only King and Pierce Counties offered voters the option of casting a ballot at a traditional poll-ing place.

Timeline (From the Office of the Secretary of State)

1974 No-excuse mail voting

1983Jurisdiction could request mail voting for special elections

1985Voters with disabilities and voters over 65 offered permanent mail voting

1993

Permanent mail voting available to all voters (upon request)County Auditors could conduct nonpartisan primaries by mail

2002Five rural counties conducting all elections by mail

200475% of Washington voters vote by mail

2005Legislation passed allowing counties to choose to vote entirely by mail

200736 out of 39 counties vote entirely by mail

200837 out of 39 counties vote entirely by mail

Vote-by-mail has made voter registration problems more serious than ever. Now that voters don’t show up at the polls, registration is the frontline for election pro-tection. When the group ACORN submits thousands of obviously phony voter registration forms that election officials reject, how many less obvious phony registra-tions get through? Last year it was Duncan the pet dog who successfully registered to vote in King County. This year, it was a dog in Albuquerque. And in Illinois, elec-tion officials mailed a registration form to a goldfish.

You just can’t make this stuff up!

Concerns over convenience and voter participation are all well and good, but if citizens think their votes might be cancelled out by Duncan the dog or Princess the gold-fish, that’s bound to reduce their faith in the system and thus their motivation to vote. And sometimes the most obvious solution really is the best. I doubt there has ever been a problem with dogs or goldfish casting a ballot at a neighborhood polling place—just a hunch.

Duplicate registrations are another concern made worse by vote-by-mail. One media investigation turned up thousands of suspected matches on two states’ voter

rolls. These duplicates often happen because retirees are registered to vote in the northern state where they summer–and in the warm-weather state where they spend the winter. They also can be college students registered at home and at school. Voting by mail makes it much easier to cast more than one ballot than if a person had to actually visit different polling locations.

Even if the species and singularity of a registrant are verified, vote-by-mail is prone to other kinds of errors and dis-honesty.

The system places a great deal of responsibility on private third-parties. From the time a ballot is printed to the time it (hopefully) arrives in a voter’s hands, it may be handled by numerous individuals working for various govern-ment agencies and private businesses. This is especially true on college cam-puses, nursing homes, and homeless shelters. Hundreds of ballots may be dropped off by the postal service to a private mail room where they might sit around for days or weeks before being picked up.

Before 1993, permanent absentee vot-ing was permitted, upon request, for those with a real reason for not going to the polls. But the rest of us should consider this carefully; is convenience worth sacrificing the integrity of our elections?

Come the next election, I’ll be at the polls—if there are any left. Me and my goldfish.

The Goldfish Who Almost VotedA N D V A R I O U S V O T E - B Y - M A I L T A L E S

I

by Diana Cieslak and Trent England

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

by Scott Dilley

ccording to a recent survey, two-thirds of Ameri-cans can name at least one of the judges on Amer-

ican Idol, but fewer than 10 percent can name the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Another survey found that only 25 percent of Americans could name more than one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amend-ment, yet more than half could name at least two char-acters from The Simpsons.

Such ignorance of the law bothers Olympia lawyer Michael Reitz, who has co-authored a book meant to inform Washington citizens of their basic legal rights. To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights—A Citizen’s Guide to the Washington Constitution, Article 1, written by Reitz and colleague Jonathan Bechtle, was recently released by the nonprofit Evergreen Freedom Founda-tion, where the authors work. The foundation is a public-policy research organization whose stated mission is “to advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited and accountable government.”

“The general apathy about our civic foundations should greatly concern us as members of the Bar,” Reitz says. “Fundamental liberties cannot be long preserved when large numbers of citizens lose sight of them.”

The 116-page paperback is a sec-tion-by-section reference guide to the state’s Declaration of Rights. Priced at $9.95, it can be purchased online at www.guide.effwa.org. Reitz notes that book publishing is a new venture for Evergreen Free-dom Foundation, which is distrib-uting the book in-house and trying to get the word out through local bar associations, law libraries, local libraries, grassroots com-munity groups, and legal commentators. “We haven’t advertised outside of our member newsletter, which goes out to about 4,500 folks monthly,” Reitz says.

The book is divided into brief segments, each of which begins with the language of a constitutional section, fol-lowed by an objectively presented two- or three-page summary of case law interpreting the section, as well as a brief list of citations to leading cases and other sources. Despite the legal references, the book is written in language easily accessible to non-lawyers. It would appear to be a natural fit as a supplementary text for high-school or college courses on law and government, as well as a handy reference for lawyers who don’t nor-

mally practice constitutional law but occasionally need a quick guide to the subject.

The book includes a foreword by Justice Charles W. Johnson of the Washington State Supreme Court. Justice Richard B. Sanders and Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna contributed glowing back-cover blurbs.

Reitz explains that he and Bechtle put the book together by examining the sources of the Washington Constitu-tion, the 1889 Constitutional Convention debates, and significant cases that have interpreted the Declaration of Rights. “We drew the book’s title from the opening sec-tion of the Washington Constitution, which says govern-ments are ‘established to protect and maintain individual rights,’” Reitz says. “This basic truth is especially rel-evant for practitioners, as Washington has experienced

a renaissance of state constitu-tional jurisprudence over the last 20 years. State constitu-tions were originally intended to be the first line of defense for the protection of individual liberty, with the federal con-stitution acting as a secondary safeguard. Few Washingto-nians realize the state constitu-tion often provides greater pro-tection of individual rights.”

In 1986, the Washington State Supreme Court issued the watershed opinion in State v. Gunwall, which examined whether it is appropriate to resort to independent state con-stitutional grounds to decide a case, rather than deferring to equivalent provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Guided in part by a law review article by Justice Robert F. Utter, the Supreme Court held that inde-

pendent review of the state constitution is indeed appro-priate, as its text may “provide greater protection for individual rights . . . .” The court then listed criteria for independently analyzing the Washington Constitution.

Reitz notes that over time, especially since the Gun-wall decision, Washington courts have recognized greater protections in the state constitution in areas such as free speech, property rights, freedom from search and seizure, the right to trial by jury, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Originally printed in Washington State Bar Associa-tion Bar News. Reprinted with permission.

Earlier this year we published

a unique layman’s guide to the

Washington Constitution. The

Washington State Bar Association

printed the following review in its

November 2008 magazine.

ON YOUR WASHINGTON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

A

BRUSH Up o, this isn’t a line from a congressman to an in-vestment banker. Instead, it is what one parent

said in response to a breakdown in bargaining between the East Valley School Board and the local teachers union in Yakima. Collective bargaining negotiations are closed to the public, which leaves parents, most teachers, and some school officials frustrated and in the dark.

Even after agreement on a contract is reached, there is no guarantee the public will be better off for it. A recent report by Lise Bang-Jensen at the Empire Center for New York State Policy documented numerous cases in which New York residents could have saved money —or at least known what they were committing to—if bargaining discussions were public.

As expected, in an interview a New York union spokesman criticized bargaining transparency as something that would “turn the collective-bargaining process into a three-ring circus” because it would “lead to second-guessing and divisive acrimony within the communities.”

But in Yakima, open bargaining has not been the cause of second-guessing and divisive acrimony. Rather, the lack of transparency is the cause. People spoke up at the latest school board meeting because they were being kept in the dark.

A similar chain of events happened recently in Rhode Island, where the East Providence School Committee is demanding that collective bargaining negotiations with local teachers be done in public. East Providence has a deficit of $4.2 million due, local officeholders claim, to the existing contract with the East Providence Education Association.

Local officials wanted to do the same thing that happens in almost all branches of government – tape the negotiations and air them on a public access TV channel. When unions didn’t agree, officials wanted two members of the press in the room. The local union still stood in the way. The tussle over the issue stalled contract negotiations.

Open bargaining keeps everyone in the loop, provides for objective observation, and protects participants on both sides from unfounded allegations of impropriety. For example, after a school board in New Jersey negotiated a labor agreement with the local union, one board member said the terms of the contract he was asked to officially approve were different from the terms he helped negotiate. Was he correct? No one knows because no objective record of the negotiations exists.

The public has a right to know what negotiators on the public payroll are or are not doing with their tax dollars. Open bargaining is more than allowing both sides to use the media to express their bargaining concerns. True transparency allows for objective reporting, which includes video cameras, audio recordings, and the presence of respected journalists. Voters should have the opportunity to see first-hand how elected officials do their jobs, just as union members should be able to

labor deals

by Scott Dilley

“Things are being hidden from us. as a communiTy,

we need answers.”

N

Secreta growing concern

To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights—A Citizen’s Guide to the Washington Constitution, Article 1

Authors: Jonathan Bechtle

and Michael Reitz

Foreword by Associate Chief Justice

Charles W. Johnson

Published by Evergreen Freedom

Foundation, 2008; Paperback; 116

pages; ISBN: 978-0-615-21232-6;

$9.95

Continued on page 11

8 LIVING LIBERTY

he U.S. government has now spent more try-ing to fix the financial crisis than it did trying to

overthrow the Nazis during World War II. CNBC estimates the cost for WWII—adjusted for

inflation—was $3.6 trillion. The 2008 financial crisis, at $4.2 trillion is the most expensive enterprise in American history.

Financial analysis company Agora Financial re-ports: “The Fed’s balance sheet has grown by 133% in the past 12 months. Traditionally, growth over 10% was seen as too aggressive. The Fed’s balance sheet crossed $1 trillion for the first time in Septem-ber. It then broke through $2 trillion Nov. 5. And according to Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimates, it could top $3 trillion by 2009.”

Agora’s managing editor Chris Mayer commented, “Our Federal Reserve seems hellbent on making Argentina look like Switzerland in terms of monetary restrain. Why is this ballooning balance sheet inflation-ary? The Federal Reserve increases its assets by buying stuff—financial assets of banks and others. The Federal Reserve pays for these assets by creating money that did

by Amber GunnGovernment bailout exceeds cost of WWII

T

Balance SheetGovernment Entity Sum in Billions of Dollars

Federal Reserve:(TAF) Term Auction Facility

Discount Window Lending:Commercial BanksInvestment Banks

Loans to buy ABCPAIGBear Sterns(TSLF) Term Securities Lending FacilitySwap Lines(MMIFF) Money Market InvestorFuning FacilityCommercial Paper Funding Facility

Other:(TARP) Troubled Assets Relief ProgramAutomakers(FHA) Federal Housing AdministrationFannie Mae/Freddie Mac

Total

900

99.256.7

76.5112.529.5225613

540257

70025300350

4284.5SOURCE: CNBC WWW.AGORAFINANCEIAL.COM

Financial Crisis

not exist before. That’s it. Simple as pie. In any event, it means paper money will buy less.”

Do the words “Weimar Republic” ring a bell for anyone? Break out your wheelbarrows folks.

To make matters worse, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (or the “totalitarian twins” as I’ve taken to calling them) refuse to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of

emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accept-ing as collateral.

Before the bailout package passed in Sep-tember, Paulson himself testified before Con-gress on the need for transparency in the bail-out package. “We need oversight,’’ Paulson told lawmakers. “We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.’’

Apparently he didn’t want it that bad. Clearly, he has reneged on that promise and decided there is nothing anyone can do about it. I can hear him now, “I AM THE LAW!”

The $2 trillion the feds have spent in the last 2 months is enough to run Washington state government for 57 years at the current annual budget (all funds) of $35 billion. But who’s counting?

“ The most expensive enterprise in American

history.”

conomic cycles have been around for millenia. The biblical book of Genesis records and inter-

prets Pharaoh’s dream of seven fat cows and seven skinny cows grazing near the Nile. In Pharaoh’s dream, the skinny cows ate the fat cows.

When the dream was interpreted for Pharaoh, he learned that the seven fat cows represented seven years of feast and plenty for Egypt; the seven skinny cows represented seven years of famine that would follow the prosperous years. Pharaoh was advised that the years of famine would be so terrible, that there would be no way of telling that a surplus had ever existed. He was told to store up food during the years of plenty so that the Egyptians would survive during the famine.

In the U.S. and in Washington, the skinny cows are taking over, so to speak. The most recent revenue fore-cast released on November 19 pushed next biennium’s deficit to $5.1 billion. But the truth is, though revenues are down relative to what lawmakers had hoped, the state will still take in $1.4 billion more for the next bud-

by Amber Gunnfat cows and skinny cows

E get! That’s a 5% increase over current revenues. The only crisis is that the gov-ernor and the legislature made unrealistic financial promises to special interest groups (votes for cash) that they are not going to be able to cover. The reason we are facing a $5 billion deficit is because Pharaoh (the governor and the leg-islature) ate the fat cows before the skinny cows even arrived.

Not only did the legislature and the governor blow through huge revenue increases in the last four years, but they spent at TWICE the rate that they took in money. Even when the current budget passed in 2007,

Continued on next page

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

hen I was a little girl growing up just outside of Detroit, I used to spend Sunday afternoons

touring the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Vil-lage with my family. Historic buildings have been trans-ported there so that visitors can walk through history and claim the heritage that is rightly theirs: Thomas Edi-son’s workshop, Alexander Graham Bell’s office, Noah Webster’s house, the Wright Brothers’ bicycle shop, and the treasures of Henry Ford. All symbols of American ingenuity in the fertile climate of opportunity. There was a sense of pride attached to the idea that my city,

the Motor City, provided the wheels that propelled the country.

To most people today, a car is just a car, a means of getting from one place to another. But historically—and symbolically—it is so much more.

The American automobile is, to me, a symbol of what it means to be an American and what America offers: opportunity, reward for hard work, and freedom. Eco-nomically speaking, the effects of the government bail-ing out the Big Three would be disastrous. For the fabric of the American identity, it would be devastating.

On October 1, 2008, Ford Motor Company celebrated the hundredth birthday of the Model T. Henry Ford’s first mass-produced automobile, the Model T ushered in an entirely new method of industry with the introduc-tion of the assembly line. In addition to providing count-less jobs, this innovation created a system in which cars could be produced at a reasonable cost, making them affordable to the average buyer. And who invented the first assembly line and its product? A farm boy from Dearborn, Michigan. This nation provided Henry Ford with the drawing board for success, and he drew a mas-terpiece.

Not only is the advent of the industry a perfect exam-ple of fundamental American ideals, the ability to buy

a car meant so much more to Americans than it does today–partly because we take it for granted and partly because it isn’t quite as feasible as it used to be. Buying a car meant that success had been achieved through hon-est hard work in the fresh air of a free society. For many, this was the fulfillment of a dream. Whether or not it’s still a dream is debatable, but I contend that the symbol still stands. From films like “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” to songs like “Come Away with Me Lucille” cars have permeated our very perception of our country.

Of more importance at the moment, though, is the question of the “masterpiece”: Is the Ford Motor Com-pany still a masterpiece? Is General Motors? Do they still produce competitive quality vehicles that are affordable for the average American? We all know the answer. Their records are fraught with bad dealings, poor quality, and compromise. American automak-ers missed their chance to prove their stripes when our expanding global economy created more serious com-petition. Instead of insisting on quality and rewarding hard work as their forerunners had, they settled for a system that has ultimately dug its own grave–or sup-posedly required federal resuscitation. What have the tradeoffs been? The Heritage Foundation reports that, “The United Auto Worker’s lavish health benefits added

by Diana CieslakThe legacy of the American auto industry, freedom or failure?

W $1,200 to the cost of each vehicle produced in the United States” as opposed to the $215 per vehicle that Toyota’s employees’ healthcare costs. This is just one example of the compromises that have jeopardized the industry’s ability to compete.

The question is, how can the United States salvage this sinking ship? For the sake of what it means to be an American, we have to give it a fighting shot. Some ships can be repaired at sea; others must sink, those losses becoming the lessons that launch future more success-ful vessels. As a Detroiter, it isn’t easy to say. Not only

would millions of jobs be lost as a direct result of the auto makers declaring bankruptcy, it would indirectly affect literally millions more. But will government loans do the trick or merely prolong the inevitable and potentially risk losing the independence of the Ameri-can automobile? Might not the industry become more dependent, less efficient, and serve consumers even more poorly than it does now, merely serving to demor-alize the people for whom it holds such significance? Yet this is what they beg for.

For many people the American car is still a symbol of rugged independence and ingenuity. We must work to preserve that symbol and to ensure that instead of opportunity, reward for hard work, and freedom, the American auto industry does not come to stand for poor leadership, compromise of principles, and dependence. Its collapse would have disastrous and far-reaching results–no one knows that better than Detroiters. Yet rock bottom might be where they need to go in order to rediscover their origins: either back to the drawing board or go down with the ship. My hunch is that we’ll be rolling again. But at the worst, we will have died an honorable death, a free one.

“ some ships can be repaired aT sea; oThers musT sink, Those losses becoming The lessons ThaT launch fuTure more successful vessels.”

Budget Revenue $ Increase % Increase

1991-93 $14,862.2 - -

1993-95 $16,564.6 $1,702.4 11.5%

1995-97 $17,637.7 $1,073.1 6.5%

1997-99 $19,620.1 $1,982.4 11.2%

1999-01 $21,262.1 $1,642.0 8.4%

2001-03 $21,140.7 <$121.4> <0.6%>

2003-05 $23,388.5 $2,247.8 10.6%

2005-07 $27,772.0 $4,383.5 18.7%

2007-09 $28,626.6 $854.6 3%

2009-11 $30,070.4 $1,443.8 5%

state spending knowingly exceeded forecasted revenues by $1.3 billion.

The truth is that our leaders dropped the ball. Our bud-get deficit is a manufactured problem. One does not build a fire and expect it not to burn. There was smoke pouring out of every corner of the building and Governor Gre-goire waited until she saw flames before taking action.

In August, when Governor Gregoire responded to our question on YouTube about how she planned to address the incoming deficit, she spent the majority of her time explaining that the deficit projection was irrelevant and that other states were much worse off than ours.

Unfortunately, she wasted valuable time and dollars hoping for the best rather than planning for the worst. It was ridiculous for lawmakers to believe that revenues could continue to grow by 9 percent per year. Not only did they believe it, they planned for it!

The question now is, how do we get out of this mess? We have an amazing opportunity to reform government at the core and get back to priorities of government. Stay tuned for our solutions in next month’s newsletter.

General Fund Revenue Growth (Thousands)Fat cows and skinny cows continued from page 8 . . .

10 LIVING LIBERTY

by Michael ReitzKeeping government out of partisan political fundraising

oes the First Amendment require local governments

to collect political funds for public employee unions? The presidential election is over (thankfully), but the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that has major implications for future elections.

The Idaho Legislature passed the Voluntary Contri-butions Act in 2003, which prohibits state and local governments from using the public payroll system for collecting political contributions. In other words, public employees cannot have political contributions automati-cally withheld from their paychecks.

Several unions sued Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, challenging the law as a violation of their free speech rights. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the state could ban this practice for its own employees, but the state could not meddle in the affairs of local government bodies, such as school districts or city governments.

Keeping government out of private political fundrais-ing is one of our policy recommendations, so the Ever-green Freedom Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in this case.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 3. Deputy Attorney General Clay Smith argued that the state of Idaho desired to avoid having public employers involved in electoral politics. He suggested that the state should be able to regulate some local government labor practices, as local governments are merely subdivisions of the state.

The justices appeared divided on the case. Justice John Paul Stevens suggested there was a partisan motivation

behind the law. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that it serves the purpose that everybody is talking about.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was also concerned about targeting labor unions. “Does the ban affect any other organization? Isn’t it simply union speech that’s at stake?”

On the other side, Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out, as we had argued in our brief, the distinct privileges unions enjoy when representing government employees, such as the exclusive representation of all employees in that workplace. “It doesn’t seem to be terribly discriminatory if indeed the only organizations in the state that are given the right . . . to deduct from the salary a municipal or private employer pays. It doesn’t seem to me particularly discriminatory to say that, moreover, in making those deductions, no part of it will be given for political activities.”

Mr. Jeremiah Collins, arguing for the Pocatello Education Association, said that the law regulates a form of political speech, and so must pass a high standard to survive. Justice Breyer said he struggled with this argument, though not for lack of trying. He pointed out that jury rooms are reserved for trial deliberations, and no one claims a violation of free speech if other activities are prohibited in the jury room.

The union attorney also argued that the state does not subsidize local payroll systems, and should not be entitled to regulate political withholdings. Justice Ginsburg questioned this distinction. “Isn’t there some state tax money that goes to fund local units?”

Justice David Souter also criticized this argument. “Why isn’t the state in exactly the same position in making that judgment, whether it’s talking about money that goes directly into the state coffer or public tax money that happens to be going into a town coffer?”

During his argument, the union attorney made one claim that raised some eyebrows when he suggested that unions would be entitled to using local government payroll deductions “in the state of nature.” Justice Kennedy dryly responded, “I’ll read Rousseau again, but I didn’t think Pocatello, Idaho was part of the state of nature.”

The argument was perhaps a slip of the tongue, but all throughout this litigation, the unions have argued that they are essentially entitled to collect money from government payroll systems, and that the statute is a violation of this right. Mr. Collin’s “state of nature” reference reveals much about the unions’ perception of their entitlements.

The Supreme Court will issue a ruling by June. The case raises important public policy questions. Should taxpayer resources be used to collect political funds for a private organization? If unions are entitled to raise money with government assistance, why not the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club? Where do you draw the line? These organizations all have the right to engage in political activity. But perhaps government shouldn’t be the bagman.

ore than two dozen unions have concluded contract

negotiations for public employees in Washington State. The Washing-ton Public Employees Association (WPEA) won the prize this year for the best swindling of another union, at taxpayer expense. WPEA negotiated a 1.6 percent raise for 2009 and a 1.7 percent raise for 2010.

WPEA also negotiated into its contract a “me, too” clause that provides it with the option of upgrading its contract if another state employee union negotiates a bigger pay increase. Since the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) negotiated for a 2 percent increase, WPEA members will likely opt to receive the larger increase.

In fact, most of the unions negotiating contracts with the governor’s office have won pay increases of about 2 percent for each of the next two years. In almost all cases, union workers ratified these agreements. State correctional workers, represented by the Teamsters, negotiated a tentative agreement that included raises of around 2 percent. Union members, however, voted against the agreement, leaving the union without a con-tract and perhaps without any pay increases this year.

The similarities among contracts have some union workers wondering if collective bargaining is working the way it was intended. If everyone gets pretty much the same thing, why have different unions? While union members are left to wonder whether their unions are really representing their interests, taxpayers should

by Scott DilleyTaxpayers help fund both sides of labor negotiations

M ask whether this collective bargaining approach makes sense for them.

Out of 25 master agreements, 13 were negotiated with employees who receive paid release time from the state. Release time allows a certain number of unionized employees to spend time as union representatives at the negotiation sessions. Of course, these employees are also being paid for their state jobs at the same time.

That’s right. State employees are paid by taxpayers to negotiate on behalf of their unions for more taxpayers’ money. The number of bargaining team members and days covered is established by existing labor contracts or tentative agreements early in a new round of negotia-tions.

This year, up to 875 days of release time were granted. For WPEA, this meant nine team members were covered for the first 7 days, for a total of 63 days of release time. The Teamsters had 16 members covered for 7 days, for a total of 112 days. WFSE received the equivalent of one person working a staggering 175 days for its general gov-ernment contract talks and 104 days for higher educa-tion.

Looking at the process from the outside, it is hard for us to calculate the exact cost of release time because we would need to know who bargained for all unions involved, how much those people worked, and at what rate of pay. What we know is that the average income and benefits for a public employee at the state and local government level in Washington total $197.88 per day, according to our analysis of the latest personal income figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. If

we use this figure, 875 days of paid release time equals $173,145 of your money.

Taxpayers are on the hook not only for the costs of the agreements, but for the time spent in negotiating the contract. The $173,000 is in addition to salaries of about 19 full-time workers at the Labor Relations Office, which negotiates the state’s position on these contracts.

The remaining 12 unions involved in talks did not use release time. Half of those unions have provisions for their negotiators to be reimbursed by the union or have their time covered by a union leave bank. This method ensures that negotiator costs for time and resources be paid for by unions, not the state. And since unions are now collecting dues or fees from a majority of govern-ment workers, they should have the funds necessary to employ their members to bargain collectively.

Legislators and the governor should consider ending the practice of release time. A worker who acts in two capacities at the same time is unfair to taxpayers and adds unnecessary costs to the collective bargaining process.

Besides, if unions are going to negotiate for essen-tially the same increase through “me, too” clauses, why should the state continue to pay for employees of several unions to negotiate while only a few from one union set the pace?

With a projected $3.2 billion budget deficit next year, legislators and the governor must consider ways to reduce government spending. Abolishing release time may be one of those ways.

D

“Should taxpayer resources be used to collect political funds for a private organization?”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

ou have until the end of the year to avoid paying federal income taxes on your 2008 IRA withdraw-

als. You can do this by directly donating funds from your IRA account to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

The Charitable IRA Rollover recently passed by Congress permits individuals age 70 ½ and older to make tax-free charitable gifts totaling up to $100,000 from a traditional Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and Roth IRAs. Because this does not count as gross income, this donation does not count as a line-item tax deduction. Your tax advantage comes by not having to report it as gross income.

The following groups of people will benefit from this opportunity:• People who don’t itemize their deductions. • Individuals who’ve reached their charitable giving

limit. • Taxpayers whose tax deductions decrease as their

income increases.

It is easy to take advantage of this provision. All you need to do is let the company holding your IRA know that you want to make a rollover to a qualified charitable organization—like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation—and provide the address of the charitable organization. The financial institution holding your IRA will make the distribution directly to the non-profit charity. That’s it!

For more information, or if you have questions, please contact Juliana McMahan at (360) 956-3482 or JMcMahan@effwa.org. This year’s transfer must be completed prior to December 31.

Give the gift of an EFF membershipor a copy of the movie Flunked.

observe their negotiators. Without transparency, there is no opportunity for drawing one’s own conclusions based on first-hand knowledge.

Critics of open bargaining sometimes point to the release of labor agreements on government and union websites as examples of transparency. However, real transparency is not just public review of an agreement after it is agreed to, which is like closing the barn door after the horse escapes. True open bargaining allows the public to see and review how negotiators behave during bargaining and how they reach the terms of an agreement before it is finalized.

It is ironic that unions claim to be open and democratic, yet they defend secret negotiations. They stifle public knowledge of and participation in significant decisions affecting the expenditure of millions of public tax dollars. With government meetings and committees at all levels now being televised, don’t unions realize that closed-door meetings on public issues are, and should be, a thing of the past?

For negotiations regarding public labor contracts, the more information available to the public, the better. It’s time to open the secretive approach to public labor contracts to the light of day.

Secret Labor Deals Continued from page 7. . .

that keeps giving all year long!Give the gift

All personal and

business contributions to EFF are

TAX DEDUCTIBLE to the extent allowed by law.

Our IRS tax ID number

is 94-3136961.

Method of payment:

Check EnclosedCredit Card (sign below): VISA Master Card Discover American ExpressCredit Card # ______________________________Sec. Code____________ Expiration Date__________

Credit Card Donation AuthorizationI authorize my credit card company to make payment(s) as indicated, and post it to my credit card account.

Signature _______________________________________________________ Date ____________________________ (required for credit card donations)

Evergreen Freedom FoundationPO Box 552Olympia, WA 98507-0552Phone: 360-956-3482 Fax: 360-352-1874Email: effwa@effwa.orgWebsite: www.effwa.org

...BECA

US

E

FR

EE

DO

M M

A T T E R S !

EE

DO

M

MA T T E R S !

by Juliana McMahanIRA rollover provisions reinstated

Y

our family and friends will thank you for the great inside information all year long found in

EFF’s great Living Liberty newsletter.

Encourage them to view and share the movie Flunked with others. It’s easy to do and will be appreciated long after the Christmas season has passed.

Please attach the name and address for each gift membership and/or copy of Flunked. We will send out a Gift Certificate with your name listed as the giver.

One-Year Gift Memberships at $50 each

Copies of Flunked DVD at $25 each

Gift Memberships plus Flunked DVDs at the discounted rate of $70 each

____ Total

Y

12 LIVING LIBERTY

ust kidding! I chuckle every time I read the Martha Stewart Countdown to Christmas list. You can find it

online with twenty-two other delightful tasks that make me glad I’ve finally learned to embrace my lazy self!

Blanching a turkey carcass was never my thing, but I did use the Christmas tradition of gift giving as a last ditch effort to buy my children’s affection and heal old

diary

looking for low-cosT, high-value chrisTmas gifT?

2009young leaders internship program

“interning at the

evergreen freedom

foundation is about the

best thing you could do

with your summer.”

The cost of EFF’s summer internship program

(administration, faculty costs and student wages) is

$5,000 per student. If you would like to help sponsor

a student, please contact Gail Kramer at gkramer@

effwa.org, (360) 956-3482 or PO Box 552, Olympia,

WA 98507. You can also donate online at our

website: www.effwa.org.

For more information, please visit our website at www.effwa.org/youngleader or contact Diana Cieslak at dcieslak@effwa.org.

To identify student leaders and cultivate within them

a love of free market principles, the power of limited

government, and personal responsibility.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation is now

accepting applications for our summer internship

program. Internships are available in our policy

centers and our communications department.

Applications are due March 13, 2009. Preference

is given to students entering their sophomore or

junior year of college. Applicants must demonstrate

strong research, writing, computer and oral

communications skills as well as strong character

and a history of leadership.

“ our interns don’t just get coffee. They get laws passed.”

hurts. If I buy something a little nicer for Nick will he know I was really sorry for banning him from the family summer vacation? Will a gift card to a clothing store help my 14 year old daughter forget the day I would not let her walk out of the house in a shirt the size of a washcloth and pants that showed way too much of what I still affectionately thought of as her “cute lil” bum?’

I’ll save you the trouble and tell you gift giving worked for a day but there was no lasting change. I did, however, discover a Christmas tradition in a parenting magazine that greatly impacted my children, their family relation-ships, and how they see themselves in the world. Could there be a better gift?

Start by gathering the family around the Christmas tree and handing out colored pens and paper. The instructions are simple: Each family member should write a letter to each of the other family members with an expression of what they most admire about that person. Your younger children will love this. Asking your teenagers to do this with their family will no doubt horrify them. Letting them use their laptop may help. My one suggestion would be to skip the stages of asking, demanding, begging and threatening—and go straight to bribery.

Then take turns reading the letters out loud. An amazing thing happens. Heartfelt admiration and appreciation do their work. Your children may not even know why their eyes are starting to water. They feel loved, self-confidence is restored, stress is diminished, and they even feel peaceful and happy. For a few minutes you remember why you wanted children. How does this family Christmas tradition support EFF’s mission to teach this younger generation to appreciate liberty and free markets? (It might be a stretch, but stay

with me.) In a free market society even the youngest and poorest have something to “bring to the table.” Their strength and willingness to work may be a commodity in their community as neighbors decide who to hire to run the weed eater. When a young person grows up being sincerely admired by those who know him best, he is more able to believe the best about himself and then believe he is of value to the world. As he enters the work force and prepares for a career, there is a sense, not of entitlement, but of having a purpose in life. When a child grows up believing they have a purpose to fulfill, they look for opportunities. Only in a free market society can people dream and make their dream a reality.

We write letters about every other year. I now have a large stack of letters in a fireproof box with other valuable documents and photos I’ll grab should my house ever catch on fire. I promise you, your children will treasure these simple pieces of paper their entire life.

of a Freedom Loving Mom…B y J U D y P A R k I N S

Judy Parkins is the EFF Invest in Liberty Capi-

tal Campaign Manger. She is the mother of four

young adult children who love to come home

and argue politics. She has a BA in education

and is an ICF Certified Life Coach. Her career

meandered from education, to politics, to mar-

keting and finally to fundraising. After a 13 year

stint as a single mom, in July 2008 she married

Tony Parkins—the nicest man on the planet.

I’m sure my Christmas to-do list looks like yours.

1. Blanch carcass from Thanksgiving turkey.

Spray paint gold, turn upside down and use as

a sleigh to hold Christmas cards.

2. Decorate homegrown Christmas tree with

scented candles handmade with beeswax from

my backyard bee colony.

3. Adjust legs of chairs so each Christmas din-

ner guest will be the same height when sitting

at his or her assigned seat.

J