A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

READING THE FEDERALIST 4 CONVENIENCE VS. EMERGENCY 10

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

WHAT DID WASHINGTON SPEND YOUR MONEY ON TODAY? 6

remember working without pay. It was called “college.”

I exhausted four years and about $60,000 eating top ramen and trying to get out of UW with a piece of paper I could carry on to my first full-time, year-round job. Those years were full of hours spent pouring over books and essays, attending lectures and study groups and cleaning hair out of the bathroom drain during the weeks leading up to finals each quarter…for free.

Thankfully that stage of work without pay in my life is through.

To my dismay, however, adulthood comes with its own phase of work without pay. It’s called “taxation.”

This year, Washingtonians worked until April 29 to pay off their federal, state and local taxes. While quantifying the amount of time spent working to pay our tax bill is disheartening, it is a reality check we all need in order to understand how much we are paying for government.

The Tax Foundation calculates Tax Freedom Day for all fifty states each year. Washington’s Tax Freedom Day is the fifth highest in the nation and falls six days after National Tax Freedom Day. Our neighbors in Oregon and Idaho are chained to the machine for a bit less time, as their tax freedom days fall on April 16 and April 20 respectively.

Government takes a bigger slice of our working year than any other major category of spending. In 2008, Americans will work 74 days to afford their federal taxes and 39 more days to pay state and local taxes. Meanwhile, buying food requires 35 days of work, clothing 13 days, and housing 60 days. Other major

categories are health and medical care (50 days), transportation (29 days), and recreation (21 days). See chart on page 2.

Just as my time spent in college had opportunity costs, the time we spend working and paying for government does as well. The 113 days worth of cash that goes back into government means it can’t go other places, such as saving for a home, starting a new business, or investing or buying products from other businesses.

Opportunity cost is important because we live in a world of scarcity and choice. Resources are not unlimited, so we must choose wisely how they are used. In a free economy, each individual can choose where to expend his or her own scarce resources, with the rational self-interest of maximizing individual utility (or profit). The beauty of the free market is that these revenue-maximizing choices have the unplanned effect of benefiting the economy as a whole, despite no orchestration by a central command.

Hallelujah! You’re now working for yourself…Sort of

This is Adam Smith’s invisible hand in a nutshell.

Taxation directs resources into a centrally-planned economy rather than a free economy. A group of elected people collectively decide where they believe those resources could be used best (keeping in mind special interests and upcoming elections), usually without any kind of market signals to tell them whether they’re using resources efficiently. Because elected officials don’t have the same rational self-interest when they are spending the public’s money as they do when they are spending their own, the dollars spent in the public sector are almost never used as efficiently as they would be in the private sector.

The bottom line is that government growth has real repercussions for our economy and for each of us individually. Governments are coercive, so the bigger they get, the more likely they will affect individual choice. Governments also redistribute wealth rather than create it,

so the more tax dollars they collect, the more redistributing and the less creating occurs.

At least we can take comfort that all those taxes are going for important things like racetracks, artisan cheesemakers, half-a-million dollar art projects for light rail stations, and year-long government studies that reach conclusions most of us already knew (Attorney General gas gouging study anyone?).

Taxation is not the only measure of government cost and growth, however. Federal, state and local regulations also cost us. In fact, an average American must work until July to pay his or her combined tax and regulation burdens at all levels of government.

While we may yet be burdened under the yoke of government regulation for the next two and a half months, at least we can rest easy for the rest of the year knowing our tax bill is paid. We’ve gotta throw ourselves a bone sometimes, right?

by Amber Gunn

I

2 LIVING LIBERTY

234

689

10

12

“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 5

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue2 NICE TO MEET YOU

3 LETTER FROM LYNN OBSERVATIONS FROM A GREEN QUEEN

4 READING THE FEDERALIST THE FAILURE OF AMERICA’S FIRST CONSTITUTION 6 WHAT DID WASHINGTON SPEND YOUR MONEY ON TODAY?

8 UAW DRIVEN TO UNIONIZE WSU ACADEMIC STUDENT EMPLOYEES STATE BUDGET BALLOONS AS LEGISLATORS SHELVE TAX AND SPEND LIMITS

9 CONVENIENCE VERSUS EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T COLLECT POLITICAL FUNDS FOR PRIVATE GROUPS 10 COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF INCREASED UNION TRANSPARENCY RANDOM THOUGHTS AL GORE & GREG NICKELS EDITION

12 JOIN US FOR A PLANNING FOR LIFE SEMINAR

Publisher:Tom Henry

Editor:Tom Henry

Layout:Joel Sorrell

“ A republic, if you can keep it.”

– Benjamin Franklin

here’s an old saying that just about sums up my legal career so far: “out of the frying pan

and into the fire.” After graduating from Texas Tech University School of Law in 2006, I began my career working for Pacific Legal Foundation, challenging the misapplication and misinterpretation of federal environmental statutes. During a leave of absence from PLF early in 2008, I worked as legislative counsel to the Senate Republican Caucus during the legislative session, once again focusing on private property rights, land use and environmental issues. (It was during that time that fate, better known as Lynn Harsh, came knocking, and here I am.)

I believe that just about the only thing more dangerous than environmental zealots are labor unions, so it is with great anticipation that I come to you as the new Director of the Labor Policy Center at EFF.

Even though my official background primarily consists of land use and environmental issues, my publications include topics ranging from gun rights to steroid use in professional baseball, and affirmative action to price gouging. I am committed to educating the public and enhancing the debate, no matter the topic.

I have long admired the work of EFF and secretly longed for an opportunity to work on issues related to First Amendment rights of citizens. As the Director of the Labor Policy Center, I will continue EFF’s quest to ensure that union members are not compelled to promote political causes of which they do not approve. I will also fight to make public sector unions as transparent as those in the private sector. I believe my inherent tenacity is well suited for EFF’s mission and I look forward to working for such an influential and innovative organization.

Tby Sonya JonesNice to meet you

How Long America Works to Pay Taxes in

Days Compared to Calendar Year 2008

Tax Freedom Day Continued from page 1 . . .

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LY NNby Lynn Harsh

IObservations from a Green Queen

am allergic to most self-ordained environmental-ists. They agitate me more than the cedar pollen that

covers my car and invades my sinuses this time of year. “But you are one,” a dear friend noted with a question

written all over her face. It’s true. I have recycled, re-purposed and composted

much of what’s possible for most of my life and have encouraged others to do the same. Chemical products have little use in my home, garden and yard, and most of the food on our table I happily prepare from scratch, with some coming from my own organic garden. In ear-lier years, my less-than-affectionate nickname was the Green Queen.

Yep! I could be “one of them.” But I’m not. I became disillusioned with the environmental move-

ment in college when my Environmental Science pro-fessor taught the course as if it were his personal social science experiment. I pitied the students in his class who bathed; were religious; Caucasian men; children of farmers or capitalists; wore shoes that tied…any of the above. He reeked of nonsense—not science.

And then the “paper or plastic” question started in ear-nest. I was amazed! Paper, after all, is more recyclable than plastic. It is created from a renewable resource—a resource we do not have to import in barrels from the Middle East. But it didn’t matter. After enough indoc-trination with high-sounding gibberish, the acceptable response several decades ago became, “plastic, please.”

Then there were the well-meaning zealots at the Food Co-op who wanted my support on a petition to outlaw non-organic food. The petition called for a complete ban within three years! They were clueless about how food prices are established and what their petition would do to the poor; clueless about how demand—and hence supply—is created; clueless about how long it takes for farmers and ranchers to retool their practices and their land to become genuine organic producers.

A young man renewing his car registration about a decade ago is another stark memory of the movement’s grave disappointment for me. He proudly announced to those of us in line around him that he was doing his part to save the earth by driving an old car instead of requir-ing that Detroit build him a new one. That met with approving nods and friendly smiles from the people around us. We left the parking lot at the same time, he in his old car held together by leftist bumper stickers—belching smoke into the air! The ironies in that situa-tion were numerous.

An incident I’ll never forget when I lived in the city was watching my neighbor pour used motor oil down the storm drain late one night. How fortuitous that I would be rounding the corner on a nightly stroll just in time to witness the sad event! This was the neigh-bor who ragged on me all the time for my free-market views—views he said were killing the earth. We had words.

Going green is all the rage today, but in our emotional rush to save the planet, vulnerable people are dying. I guess that’s one way to clean up the earth, but in that case, I advance the notion that elitist environmentalists should lead the way and go first.

For example, while I don’t want chlorine in my drink-ing water, it’s a life saver in some places. Science will eventually give us a better, cost-effective way to help people resist water-borne diseases, but until then, I’d rather keep a child from dying than to protest the use of chlorine where no other viable option exists.

And did politicians and environmentalists not under-stand that prices would escalate dramatically when food

is used en masse to fuel cars instead of human bodies? I can afford to pay more for the food I need, but half the world’s population cannot. Food inflation is now a global enemy. And now we are reading about food shortages and rationing, even in parts of the United States.

What about the people who make extra trips to the market every week to buy fresh, locally grown food? I prefer that myself. But I do not pretend that the extra gas I am burning getting there is a good trade-off for the environment.

If Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and others have their way, we will be punished if we answer yes to either

choice: “Paper or plastic?” It’s a cotton bag or two now. I wonder what will happen over the next few years to the price of things like cotton t-shirts and cotton medi-cal supplies. Will we subsidize cotton farmers to pro-duce raw materials for our bags like we subsidize corn farmers to produce biofuels?

Creating cognitive dissonance seems to be a specialty of these pseudo-environmentalists. For example, the qualities they purport to embrace can be found in abun-dance on small farms and forests managed by families. But these are also the very people being run off their land by tax and regulatory policies devised by many environmentalists and their political friends.

Furthermore, the free market, maligned by most of the save-the-planet-people, is the fastest vehicle for providing incentives to make efficient and effective environmental choices. The market provides the huge capital investments necessary for scientific experimen-tation. It creates, markets and distributes products that result from scientific experimentation. It does not spend decades subsidizing well-meaning, but inefficient rem-edies. The market rewards what actually works, not just what our leaders imagine should work.

Science, not politics, will help us find the best solu-tions to environmental concerns. For example, some “food” may have to be put in gas tanks on the way to finding better solutions to power our vehicles. But cre-ating mass hysteria and enormous subsidies to propel the majority of us to do that is premature at best and irresponsible at worst. We consumers ought to embrace open debate and the free-market as the best agents for saving the planet.

Under no circumstances should we put our heads in the sand when it comes to assumptions about food and broader environmental safety issues. And changing our insensible energy policy is imperative. But politics should cede to science in these matters.

As for me, I am happy that demand from a grow-ing number of my generation has allowed farmers and ranchers to provide high quality, organically-produced

“ AnD DiD PoliTiCiAns AnD environmenTAlisTs

noT unDersTAnD ThAT PriCes WoulD esCAlATe

DrAmATiCAllY wHen food iS uSed en maSSe to

fueL carS inStead of Human bodieS?”

food, at much lower costs. Economic incentives are great for changing human behavior and for creating new opportunities. I will continue forgoing the use of most chemicals on my property so bees, butterflies and birds will live there happily pollinating my garden and eating bad bugs. I cheerfully will support local farmers and artisan chefs. And compost piles…well, they are my black gold!

So, to answer my friend’s statement-that-was-really-a-question: Yes, I care deeply about conservation and good stewardship of the environment. But it comes from my sensible, Scottish, agrarian roots, not a politically driven, hysterical social movement. For my kin, the land is pre-cious and reusing “things” is virtuous. Gaining new knowledge and common sense about scientific applica-tion in daily life was as normal to us as breathing.

It would be the same for most people today if we had insisted that our schools teach more good science and less political and social theory. This, combined with respect for one another, protection of private property rights and limited government intervention would unleash the forces necessary to protect our environment.

These concepts are really important for emerging nations and the third world where life energy is spent surviving; where political environmentalism means death.

We humans are capable of making significant changes in our behavior, but we need the right incentives. Mix-ing environmental fact with fiction and terrorizing us about all of it indiscriminately only works for a little while before we tire of it or it bankrupts us.

I look forward to learning more about being a good steward of this planet. But just to be clear: this Green Queen doesn’t plan on trading in my lawn mower for a goat until Home Depot will drop one off, clean up its mess and give me a new model if it doesn’t work as advertised.

4 LIVING LIBERTY

Part VI:

The failure of america’s firsT consTiTuTionThe 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 essay is the four th in a 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

T he Articles of CONFEDERATION and PERPETUAL UNION was

America’s first constitution. Drafted in 1776, ratified in 1781, the Articles defined the first formal framework of a government over the newly independent states. What the Articles established was “a firm league of friendship” between the states “for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.”

Until the brink of the Revolution, the colonies had no formal connections between them. They shared a continent and a king and, to varying degrees, cul-ture and commerce, but their only com-mon government was in Britain. It was that government’s attempts to directly tax the colonies that spurred them to organize. The success of several coordi-nated colonial boycotts proved the pos-sibility of further united action. The out-break of war required it.

No American government had planned the beginning of the Revolution. On April 19, 1775, when the anonymous “shot heard ‘round the world” was fired at Lexington and the colonial militias defeated British regulars at Concord, the First Continental Congress had been adjourned for nearly six months. The Second Continental Congress did not convene until May 10, 1775—just a few

hours after Ethan Allen had seized Fort Ticonderoga “In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress.”

Colonists and colonial legislatures were jealous to maintain their powers of “internal police,” including the regula-tion of “health, safety, and morals,” and the power of taxation. They were not, however, eager to shoulder the new bur-dens of war and foreign affairs. For this, Americans looked to their new national Congress.

The Second Continental Congress did, gradually and somewhat haltingly, assume the role of America’s national government. On June 14, 1775, it created the Continental Army and the follow-ing day it appointed George Washington commander of all forces “raised, or to be raised, for the defense of American lib-erty.” The next year, it declared indepen-dence in the name of “the thirteen united States of America.”

The Articles were written not to change but to formalize this system, forged by the necessities and practicalities of war. This is evident in the lack of urgency sur-rounding implementation of the Articles. On June 11, 1776, Congress resolved to appoint a committee “to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies.” The committee reported back on July

12, 1776, but deliberations did not begin in earnest until the following April. Con-gress finally approved the Articles on November 17, 1777, and sent them to the states for ratification.

In little more than a year, every state except Maryland had ratified the Arti-cles. Yet unanimity was required before they would take effect. Maryland, demanding that all states surrender their claims to western lands, did not accept the Articles until February 1781. Thus on March 1, 1781, after nearly five years of consideration, the Articles became the first constitution of the United States.

The Articles of ConfederationThe Articles constituted an agreement

“between the states,” that is, between the thirteen state governments. The primary purpose was to bind the states to a com-mon defense “against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them.” The states retained their “sov-ereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Each state annually would appoint at least two but no more than seven mem-bers of Congress, with no person serving for more than three out of six years. Their states could pay them, but they could not receive any pay or other benefit from the national government. Each state had one vote in Congress, regardless of popula-tion. There was no national executive or judicial power.

The Articles required that the “free inhabitants” of each state have equal protection under the laws of other states and be allowed to travel freely within the union. Each state was required to give “full faith and credit” to the official acts of the others and to return fugitives from justice.

Congress had the powers of conducting foreign affairs, making war and estab-lishing peace. To pay for war and “all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare,” Congress could order the states to con-tribute to “the common treasury … in proportion to the value of all land within

each state.” Yet Congress had to rely on the legislatures to levy those taxes and had no enforcement mechanism, save the good will of the state governments.

Congress also was to mediate dis-putes between states; regulate coinage, weights and measures; manage affairs with Indian tribes; establish a postal system; admit new states; and borrow money on behalf of the United States. Many decisions required a supermajor-ity of nine states. Changes to the Articles required consent “by the legislatures of every state.”

Some Americans—particularly mem-bers of Congress and officers in the Continental Army—found the Articles wanting from the start. They disdained the inefficiency of the Continental Con-gress and recognized a continuation of that system. Many Americans came to believe that the Articles failed even to satisfy its own limited purposes. With-out the power to regulate trade, Congress lacked a major tool of foreign affairs. Unable to enforce its levies of money on the states, the national treasury could not pay the interest on the nation’s foreign debt.

Perhaps the most serious flaw of the Articles was its supermajority and una-nimity requirements. Five states could defeat any significant measure in Con-gress. Changing the articles required every state to consent, eventually pre-venting the establishment of a five per-cent duty on imports. Many colonial leaders—including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—saw the failure of the import duty and the refusal of the states generally to support the national treasury as portents of disaster. These advocates for a more powerful, more energetic national government were labeled Federalists.

It was the Articles’ requirement of unanimity, essentially foreclosing any opportunity for change from within, that forced reformers to draw up an entirely new plan at the Constitutional Conven-tion in Philadelphia over the summer of 1787. In defense of their proposed Con-stitution, many Federalists pointed to the failings of the Articles with an eye to the solutions they believed were present in

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

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

the new plan. Hamilton, likely in partial collaboration with Madison, wrote eight essays in The Federalist Papers—Nos. 15 through 22—on “The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union” and “Other Defects of the Present Confederation.” As with all of the Feder-alist essays authored by Hamilton, Madi-son and Jay, they wrote as Publius.

Federalist Nos. 15–17 (Hamilton)Publius begins a new topic in his fif-

teenth essay, the “insufficiency of the present Confederation to the preservation of the Union.” Most Americans, he writes, recognize “that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy. The facts … have forced them-selves upon the sensibility of the people at large.” This is almost certainly a refer-ence to Shays’ Rebellion, an uprising of armed debtor farmers in Western Massa-chusetts during the autumn of 1786.

Turning to foreign affairs, Publius catalogues the failures of the national government: inability to pay foreign and domestic debts, failure to force Britain to remove the last of its forces from the Western frontier, lack of military pre-paredness, inability to assert treaty rights because of American treaty violations, lack of “public credit,” a decline in com-merce, and a dangerous lack of respect from foreign nations. At home, Publius finds “an opinion of insecurity” produc-ing a decline in property values and a reduction of “private credit.” The United States has, declares Publius, “reached almost the last stage of national humili-ation.”

These national troubles “do not proceed from minute or partial imperfections,” writes Publius, “but from fundamental errors in the structure of the building, which cannot be amended otherwise than by an alteration in the first principles….”

The Articles fail, according to Pub-lius, for two reasons. First, they provide for no power of enforcement. “Why has government been instituted at all?” asks Publius. “Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of rea-son and justice without constraint.” Thus “it is essential to the idea of a law that it be attended with a … penalty or punish-ment for disobedience.” There is no gov-ernment without force, no law without punishment.

The second failure is the confinement of the national government to acting on the states only rather than on the people directly. While more controversial, Pub-lius sees this as a critical issue and makes it the focus of Nos. 15 and 16. Govern-ments enforce their will, he writes, either through military action against other governments or through the police and courts of law against individuals. Retain the system of a national government act-ing on state governments and the only real power of enforcement can be mili-tary action leading to war and disunion.

Publius believes that the preservation of the union requires a true national govern-ment—one that can not only make laws, but enforce them. Yet a national gov-ernment is only compatible with union if it can enforce its laws on the people directly, rather than warring with state governments. If states retain any power to nullify national laws, the tendency will be to exercise and abuse this power and thus devour the national government.

In his seventeenth essay, Publius addresses the concern that state govern-ments will be crushed beneath greater national power. He finds it doubtful that national statesmen, concerned with ques-tions of finance and war, would have any desire to interfere with local regulatory matters. Yet even if they did, Publius finds the real power in the state governments. They remain closer to the people and in possession of the powers most likely to interfere with the everyday lives of citi-zens, particularly criminal and civil law. Publius closes No. 17 with the example of “ancient feudal systems,” where tribal or clan loyalties prevailed against their own alliances and attempts at nationhood.

Federalist Nos. 18–20 (Madison with Hamilton)

Federalist essays 18–20 compare and contrast the United States under the Articles of Confederation with other confederations, from ancient Greece to the contemporary Netherlands. Perhaps no Federalist essays better mark the dif-ference between the newspaper readers of 1787 and those in modern America.

Publius’ first example is the Greek Amphictyonic League, which “bore a very instructive analogy to the present Confederation of the American States.” Each Greek city-state had equal repre-sentation in the Amphictyonic council, whose primary functions were foreign and inter-state relations. Yet form was not function; the stated equality between the states did not prevent Athens or other cities from “tyrannizing” the rest and eventually bringing the League to destruction.

Another Greek confederacy, the Achaean League, “was far[e] more inti-mate, and its organization much wiser.” In addition to consolidating the powers of foreign affairs and inter-state dispute resolution, the Achaeans harmonized their laws and their money, resulting in “more of moderation and justice in the administration of its government, and less of violence and sedition in the peo-ple,” than in purely independent Greek city-states.

Federalist No. 19 takes up the exam-ples of Germany, Poland and the Swiss cantons. In each, the system of a national sovereignty acting on member sovereign-ties has produced, according to Publius, discord among the members and weak-ness in foreign relations.

In Federalist No. 20, Publius examines the United Netherlands. He finds their confederacy similar to America under the Articles and again detects weakness, incompetency and danger. Publius para-phrases Dutch legal philosopher Hugo Grotius, “that nothing but the hatred of his countrymen to the house of Austria kept them from being ruined by the vices of their constitution.” The lesson of his-tory is clear, concludes Publius; “a sover-eignty over sovereigns [rather than] indi-viduals,” leads to weakness and violence rather than order and justice.

Federalist Nos. 21–22 (Hamilton)Here Publius returns to the particular

insufficiencies of the Articles of Confed-eration, and first, to “the total want of a sanction to its laws.” In this way, he writes, the United States appear uniquely weak compared to other confederations. Just as the national government cannot

enforce its own laws, neither can it assist a state in enforcing the state’s laws. The lack of national power to prevent violent uprisings within the states is, to Publius, “another capital imperfection.”

Collecting revenue from the states according to “quotas” based on popula-tion and land values is another source of dissension among the states, according to Publius. Such a system ignores other economic realities, burdening some states more than others. He suggests a direct tax “on articles of consumption.” Such a measure is more evidently fair and contains an inherent protection, since revenues will decline—from lack of sales or from smuggling—if govern-ment sets rates too high.

International trade agreements are hindered and interstate disputes cre-ated, writes Publius, by the lack of any national power to regulate commerce. This deficiency, he notes, is one of the more widely recognized. It was, in fact, the original reason for the Annapolis Convention, which in turn called for the Constitutional Convention.

Publius concludes his discussion of the Articles noting a few final shortcomings. Providing each state with an equal vote “contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should pre-vail.” The Articles numerous superma-jority requirements further permit a tiny minority to bring the national govern-ment to a standstill. Lastly, Publius finds the United States unable to abide by its treaties without a national court to pro-vide a uniform understanding and appli-cation of the treaty obligations.

It should be clear to all, writes Publius, that without fundamental reform, the United States must end either in disunion or tyranny. He concludes with an even more principled criticism of the Articles of Confederation.

iT has noT a liTTle conTribuTed To The infirmiTies of The exisTing federal sysTem, ThaT iT never had a raTificaTion by The people. … The fabric of american empire oughT To resT on The solid basis of The consenT of The people. The sTreams of naTional power oughT To flow immediaTely from ThaT pure, original founTain of all legiTimaTe auThoriTy.

6 LIVING LIBERTY

axpayers across the Evergreen State should be very concerned with how much money lawmak-

ers and bureaucrats spend each year to keep this mas-sive government machine known as Washington func-tioning.

Earlier this year, EFF’s own Amber Gunn reported that Washington State government is spending money at a rate faster than projected revenues can support, thus propelling our state into a budget deficit of massive pro-portions.

This past quarter EFF launched a new project designed to provide taxpayers access into the secret world of state spending. The Transparency in Government Project will work with state and local leaders to shine more light on government spending and practices that were once extremely difficult to access.

State Spending Website Coming Soon

In this advancing age of technology, information is often available through the mere click of a button. Infor-mation on how government spends your money is a lit-tle more difficult to access online – but this practice is about to change!

Washington taxpayers rejoice! With the passing of SB6818, taxpayers finally will have an inside track on how elected officials are spending your hard-earned money.

Under the direction of the Office of Financial Man-agement (OFM) and the Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program (LEAP), Washington soon will launch a brand new website that will allow citizens to comb through expenditure information on all state agencies, offices, boards, commissions and institutions of higher education.

The new website will provide access to current bud-get data, access to current accounting data for budgeted expenditures and staff, and access to historical financial data. At a minimum, the site will provide access or links to the following information as data are available:

• State expenditures by fund or account;• State expenditures by agency, program and subpro-

gram;• State revenues by major source;• State expenditures by object and sub-object;• State agency workloads, caseloads and performance

measures,• recent performance audits; and• State agency budget data by activity.

EFF is working side-by-side with OFM to develop criteria for the new website. Using best practices and tips from other states, our goal is to ensure the site is comprehensive, user-friendly and accessible through a stand-alone web address.

A prime example of a successful transparent state spending website can be accessed at http://www.kan-sas.gov/kanview. Kansas has arguably one of the most

T comprehensive websites so far. Taxpayers can access a plethora of data including:

• Annual expenditures (including contractual services), revenues and bonded indebtedness;

• Disbursements by any state agency from funds established within the state treasury;

• Annual revenues, as determined by the secre-tary of administration and as available within the central accounting system;

• Salaries and wages including, but not limited to, compensation paid to individual employees of state agencies;

• Gifts, donations and federal grants including, but not limited to, amounts received from pub-lic and private entities to aid in support of a specific function or other governmental activ-ity;

• Agency earnings including, but not limited to, amounts collected by each agency for mer-chandise sold, services performed, licenses and permits issued, or regulation;

• Aid to local units including, but not limited to, amounts paid to individual units of government for individually identifiable aid programs.

The website is so precise that no expenditure is safe from the eyes of taxpayers. For example:

• On May 11, 2006 the Kansas Highway Patrol spent $1,352.36 on “supplies” from Sweet Homes Bakery & Catering of Hutchinson, KS;

• During the 2007 fiscal year, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks paid nearly $1.2 million to TL Enterprises, Inc. for “nonstructural land improve-ments;”

• During the 2007 fiscal year, the Kansas Dental Board bought $2,400 worth of “stationary and office sup-plies” from Corporate Express, Inc.

Washington taxpayers deserve a site that is equally thorough or superior to the Kansas website. EFF will work with state leaders to provide taxpayers with the most comprehensive website on state spending avail-able.

Budget transparency goes hand-in-hand with hon-esty and authenticity. State government spends millions of dollars every day, and most taxpayers have no clue where the money is going. To hold our government more accountable, taxpayers need increased clarity into the spending habits and practices of government.

Performance Audit Reim-bursements Don’t See the Light of Day

Speaking of honesty and authenticity…Another way to hold government more accountable to taxpayers is through performance audits.

During the first quarter, EFF worked to protect per-formance audits by halting efforts to raid the dedicated performance audit fund. Senate Democrats attempted to advance legislation that would have reim-bursed school districts and educational service districts for money spent gathering information required to conduct their performance audit.

That’s right folks, under SB6450 school dis-tricts and educational service districts would have been reimbursed for money spent to ensure education tax dollars are being spent effectively and efficiently.

EFF had several concerns about the proposed legislation.

First, performance audits pay for themselves. Independent audits help save tax dollars through the identified cost savings.

Second, why should school districts and educational service districts receive special privileges when other agencies do not receive reimbursements? Until now, not a single school district or educational service district has been through a comprehensive and independent per-formance audit, but they want reimbursement laws on the books for their first audit and future

audits. This policy would have encouraged other audited agencies to jump on the “me-too” bandwagon.

This leads us to our third concern. If all government entities were to receive reimbursement for money spent proving they are good stewards of our tax dollars, the dedicated performance audit fund soon would be bank-rupt. And performance audits as a management tool would be dead despite the clear intention of the voters when they approved Initiative 900.

Where do we go from here?

Transparency in government spending and indepen-dent performance audits are just two of many tools in the government accountability arsenal.

EFF’s Transparency in Government Project will encourage legislators and public officials to align their actions more closely with the taxpayers’ interests by the sheer knowledge that someone is watching.

EFF plans on taking transparency to a whole new level! In the upcoming months we expect to make measurable progress in our campaign to advance transparency in other areas of government such as higher education, property taxes and k-12 education, just to name a few.

Check out our blog, website and podcasts to catch the latest news and information about government transpar-ency

You have a right to know where the state’s money goes…After all, it’s your money!

What did Washington spend your money on today?

“…Af

ter a

ll, it

’s yo

ur m

oney

!”

by Ryan Harriman

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

Ben ChAvisBen is the Principal of American indian Public Charter in oakland, California. since 2001, he has turned what used to be the worst school in the city into one of the top-performing schools in the state.

AnGie DormAnAngie is a teacher at Warden high school and the winner of the 2006 American star of Teaching Award for the state of Washington. in addition to teaching social studies, Angie has played a critical part in obtaining scholarships and grants for students from low-income, im-migrant families.

Bill ProserBill is a teacher of AP and honors literature at Coeur D’Alene Charter Academy, which he founded in 1999. From the humble beginnings of 200 students housed in a warehouse that was converted to a school in the 11th hour, Coeur D’Alene Charter has secured its place of achievement: in 2007, it was named the national Charter school of the Year.

eDuCATion

aLL-StarSW W W . F l u n k e D T h e m o v i e . C o mmeeT more aLL-StarS AT

meeT

Portland: may 28, 6-8:30, dinner buffet/ movie eventcontact Tina Pisenti at Cascade Policy inst. (tina@cascadepolicy.org)neXt PreView:

SPRING2008 CAN ClASS SChedule

TRI-CITIeS—MAy 10, 2008First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (dinner provided)call for location

CeNTRAl WAShINGToN uNIveRSITy, elleNSbuRG—MAy 14-15, 2008First Principles of Freedom Course from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (dinner provided)movie Preview & Discussion from 8:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.location: CWu Campus, ellensburg, WA

Please contact Juliana mcmahan to register for any of these classes (Jmcmahan@effwa.org or 360-956-3482).

TACoMA/ShelToN—JuNe 7, 2008First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)Persuasive Writing Course from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (dinner provided)call for location

PuyAlluP—JuNe 21, 2008First Principles of Freedom Course from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (lunch provided)location: Puyallup Public library, south meeting room, 324 s meridian, Puyallup, WA

ReGISTeR

See tHe fiLm .

“�A�fine�film.�It’s�very�informative.�Very�challenging.”– MIChAel Medved, march 19, 2008,

on his nationally-syndicated radio show (1.9 million listeners)

8 LIVING LIBERTY

ur legislators knew they were dealing with un-certain times this session—what with a slowing

economy and $2.4 billion projected budget deficit in the next biennium.

Yet, instead of confining the supplemental budget to its true purpose—EMERGENCIES—legislators added $306 million in new spending to the operating budget. Aside from flooding and certain transportation crises, most of these expenditures were add-ons that should have been postponed until next biennium.

The new spending brought general fund operating expenditures to $33.6 billion, surpassing the February 2008 revenue forecast (i.e. the state’s projected income) by about $1.6 billion.

The legislature’s so-called “surplus” of $800 million is a superficial estimate based on one-time available carryover funds and transfers, not prudent budgeting. This fiscal irresponsibility is nothing new for the legislature.

Over the last ten years, the state budget has ballooned by 83 percent. Inflation during the same period was only 28 percent.

The drastic difference in the growth of the budget as compared to inflation signals the governor and the legislature’s complete inability to prioritize.

It’s the “I can’t choose so I’ll just buy them all” syndrome I get when I step into Best Buy. In reality, I’m limited to buying those few items I can afford within my personal budget.

Then again, if I were to use my neighbor’s cash rather than my own, I’d probably walk out with a whole lot more stuff. That is precisely what the legislature is doing. Spending someone else’s money is almost always a guarantee to spend more.

In theory, legislators and agencies use the results-driven Priorities of Government (POG) model to build

he first thing that comes to mind when a person thinks about the United Auto Workers (UAW) is

usually American automobiles. But apparently the UAW is no longer exclusively in the business of representing automobile manufacturing employees.

According to an op-ed recently published in the Wash-ington State University’s (WSU) student newspaper, the Daily Evergreen, the UAW is behind recent attempts to unionize academic student employees at WSU and at other higher education institutions around the U.S.

Why would the nation’s largest automotive workers union want academic student employees to join their union? Student employees have nothing to do with building automobiles or the industry. But there’s some-thing valuable student workers have that UAW union bosses want —money.

Academic student workers have it, maybe not much of it, but union bosses want it!

UAW has seen a dramatic decline in membership in recent years. With the U.S. automotive industry under a major financial crunch, numerous jobs have been eliminated in plants nationwide. The loss in employ-ment numbers directly correlates with the loss in union funds.

As jobs decrease so does the amount of money labor unions can collect through dues. If the money isn’t com-ing in, the union bosses can’t play! By unionizing aca-demic student workers, UAW is diversifying its mem-bership criteria, pulling in new employees to offset the financial crunch on its budget.

Before WSU’s winter break, union thugs dressed as student representatives armed with clipboards and ball-point pens descended on the Palouse and began hustling academic student employees to fill out questionnaires.

The questionnaire turned out to be a union card check stunt, and UAW was officially collecting support.

According to the op-ed written by Xyanthe Neider, WSU grad student, “several students were led to believe they were signing to get information or support explor-ing the efficacy of students unionizing. With a sense of urgency and high pressure tactics, many students filled out cards. There was no further communication or information from this group until Feb. 11, “when they had already introduced legislation at the state level and approached the WSU administration.

“On Feb. 11, we found out the movement was backed by the United Auto Workers association. Instead of aligning with a similar union such as WSU Classified Staff, the group chose to align with one of the largest and most powerful national unions. It is unclear what automobile workers have in common with academic

by Ryan BedfordUAW�driven�to�unionize�WSU�academic�student�employees

T employees or what the national orga-nization knows about higher educa-tion in Washington.”

On March 4, the Washington State Senate passed a bill to grant col-lective bargaining rights to WSU academic student employees. The governor signed the bill into law on March 27, but it still seems rational that the UAW should have waited for the law to change before hustling stu-dents.

Students across the country are questioning the recent unionization attempts by the UAW. Student workers nationwide are banning together to stop the UAW from forcing their representation upon them. Their website, www.atwhatcost.org, tracks the movement of the UAW unionization attempts across America.

Frustrated by the possibility of UAW representation, WSU student employees launched their own website: www.wsu-at-what-cost.pbwiki.com. The new site pro-vides student workers with a platform to voice their opinions on the union without fear of retaliation.

Elected officials in Washington State persist in pan-dering to political desires of big labor instead of being accountable to taxpayers. If employee organizations representing employees in higher education continue to receive invitations to sit at the bargaining table, the burden of collective bargaining will be placed on the consumer…aka students and taxpayers.

Perhaps academic student workers at WSU should band together to form a professional educator’s associa-tion that represents their ideals rather than shelling out money to support the political games of union bosses.

by Brian ZapotockyState�budget�balloons�as�legislators�shelve�tax�and�spend�limits

O

the budget. In practice, the fact that spending outpaces revenue is a violation of a fundamental POG principle: prioritize spending within existing resources.

The most egregious spending increases of this decade occurred during the last two biennia under Governor Gregoire’s watch. The legislature’s suspension of the voter-approved Initiative 601 tax and spending limits resulted in a budget increase of 33 percent in the last four years.

Had the budget been restrained to its average growth rate of eight percent under I-601, it would be about $4 billion less than the current budget. That means we would be sitting on a $2 billion surplus rather than a $2 billion deficit.

Taxpayers are being asked to shoulder the burden for their legislator’s chronic fiscal irresponsibility. Then again, it’s “we the people” who keep electing them.

“BeFore Wsu’s WinTer BreAk, union ThuGs DresseD As sTuDenT

rePresenTATives ArmeD WiTh CliPBoArDs AnD BAllPoinT Pens DesCenDeD on The PAlouse AnD

BeGAn husTlinG ACADemiC sTuDenT emPloYees To Fill ouT quesTionnAires.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

by Ryan BedfordConvenience�versus�emergency

T

he U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Ninth Circuit decision that declared Idaho’s Vol-

untary Contributions Act unconstitutional. Congratu-lations to Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and his team for convincing the Court to take the case.

The Voluntary Contributions Act, which the Evergreen Freedom Foundation helped draft, prohibits unions

his year, the Legislature, and the rest of Washing-ton state, had a taste of a true emergency. In early

December, 2007, harsh Pacific winds drove a cold storm onto the coasts of Oregon and Washington. Within the first few days, five people were killed. Winds flattened entire forests and knocked out utilities and communica-tions. Rain saturated the ground and unstable hillsides gave way, wiping out homes, bridges and roads. Entire counties were isolated without power, water, food or help. Adding to the devastation, the rain and snowmelt quickly overwhelmed the Chehalis River watershed and entire communities were inundated with water.

The resulting tragedy earned itself a place in history books—two 500-year floods occurring within nearly a decade—and throughout the ordeal, real emergencies abounded. Emergency workers plucked survivors off rooftops. Volunteers helped comfort victims. Utility and municipal employees restored communication and transportation. Many of these activities were “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.”

This language is found in Article II of the Washington State Constitution. Article II authorizes the legislature to use an emergency clause when it determines that legislation must take effect immediately and it must deny the people their right of referendum due to the purported emergency.

But the Legislature was not taking notes. Alongside 10 “emergency” bills addressing the flood (only two passed), the legislature proposed emergencies such as authorizing a cigarette tax agreement with the Yakama Nation, setting gambling fees, authorizing highway tolls, unionizing Washington State University graduate students, delaying the math portion of the WASL—this, of course, is understandable because nobody would reelect incumbents if they let a third of high school seniors fail to graduate this year—and mandating all-mail voting.

Despite the inability to identify a true emergency when they see one, legislators’ abuse of the emergency clause has declined over the last few years. This improvement

is largely a result of an education campaign by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and many of the state’s newspaper editorial boards to explain the purpose and proper use of the emergency clause.

Year election/non-election “ emergency” bills sent to Governor

bills sent to Governor

Percent

2005 non-election year 98 523 19 percent

2006 election year 34 376 9 percent

2007 non-election year 73 524 13 percent

2008 election year 23 331 7 percent

from using government payroll systems for political fundraising. The Idaho Education Association and several other unions claim the measure silences their political voice, and the Ninth Circuit invalidated the law because it singles out political speech.

A ban on using government payroll deductions for political contributions is good public policy. Nothing in the law prohibits union members from contributing to candidates of their choice, and nothing in the law prohibits unions from engaging in politics.

But government systems should not be used to collect political funds for private organizations. The state has

no reason to subsidize political fundraising, whether for Democrats or Republicans, organized labor or business. It simply isn’t a vital function of government and taxpayers shouldn’t be stuck with the bill for the union’s fundraising.

Contrary to the Idaho Education Association’s apoplectic claims, the Voluntary Contributions Act does

by Michael ReitzGovernment�shouldn’t�collect�political�funds�for�private�groups

T

The message even has been heeded by the Governor, who has also at least token restraint. Last year she vetoed the emergency clauses in ten bills saying, “An emergency clause is to be used where it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety or whenever it is essential for the support of state government. I do not believe that an emergency clause is needed.” This year, she said the same thing about five more bills, even a bill to require criminal background checks for children placed in out-of-home care, which could arguably be an emergency. “Section 4 is an emergency clause providing the bill with an immediate effective date. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has notified the State that it will extend provisional access to its name/descriptor criminal background check database until this bill takes effect. An emergency clause is therefore unnecessary,” she wrote.

Despite the trend toward restraint, emergency clauses are seldom used for emergencies today. Some legislators—encouraged primarily by union special interests—use it to deny citizens their right of referendum. For the most part though, emergency clauses are used to circumvent the 90-day waiting period

before a bill goes into effect and implement legislation immediately. As a consequence, the emergency clause has become a pseudo “time-of-the-essence” clause. Thirteen of this year’s “emergencies” authorized state

taxing or spending. One tried to reduce the increase in foreclosures by authorizing the state to teach classes on managing finances (most legislators should attend too). Another prevents long-term care facilities from unfairly evicting residents. These are all important issues, but they are hardly true emergencies.

A solution is needed. In today’s point-and-click society, it may be imprudent to wait 90 days to fix a problem. These problems, however, rarely rise to the level of a true emergency. For these time-of-the-essence bills, the emergency clause is an improper vehicle because it overrides the peoples’ right to referendum. The legislature should authorize an additional clause to permit administrative, uncontroversial bills—bills that pass with a supermajority—to be implemented immediately while still allowing a 90-day window for citizens to initiate a petition drive.

Until then, the public should maintain pressure on legislators to ensure that purported “emergencies” are actually emergencies. Now that Legislators have experienced a real natural disaster, they have no excuse for equating a mandate for all-mail voting with a catastrophic flood.

“ When Utah adopted a measure similar to Idaho’s, voluntary teacher contributions to the union’s political fund dropped by 90 percent.”

not silence the union’s political voice. It simply ensures that the union’s political funds come from voluntary, informed contributors. It requires unions to collect political contributions one at a time, just like any other political entity.

When presented with a choice, union members overwhelmingly refuse to financially support the union’s political activity. When Utah adopted a measure similar to Idaho’s, voluntary teacher contributions to the union’s political fund dropped by 90 percent. When Washington state required unions to get written consent for political donations, member contributions to the teacher union’s

political committee dropped to only 11 percent of the union’s membership.

The unions suing Idaho assert they have a First Amendment right to speak on behalf of teachers and other workers. Indeed, they do, but not on the taxpayers’ dime.

And perhaps their motivation is not as altruistic as union leaders claim. Robert Chanin, general counsel for the National Education Association, once said in U.S. District Court, “It is well-recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction, you won’t collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary. I think it has to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers...” Mr. Chanin continued, “[They] simply don’t come up with the money regardless of the purpose.”

In other words, unions want to use the easiest political collection method available, regardless of how their members feel.

Numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that unions have no constitutional right to government payroll deductions. The state owes unions no special obligation to collect their income. We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the Ninth Circuit and keep government out of the political fundraising business.

10 LIVING LIBERTY

nion accountability won a victory recently when a U.S. District Court judge ruled that federal financial

transparency laws apply to certain public-sector unions, traditionally exempt from such regulations. The decision potentially will allow workers across the country to have increased access to their unions’ financial dealings.

The case, Alabama Education Association v. Chao, has worked its way through the court system for several years. The decision basically forces state-level public-sector unions to disclose their finances to the federal government if those unions are affiliated with a nation-al union that must comply with the federal reporting laws. While the case deals directly with affiliates of the National Education Association, the same principle ap-plies to other public-sector unions, including AFCSME and SEIU.

The case likely will be appealed to the District of Co-lumbia Circuit Court of Appeals. If upheld, the decision will mean that financial reports from many state-level public-sector unions will be available on the Depart-ment of Labor’s disclosure website, www.unionreports.gov. Public employees, including teachers, will then be able to find out how their union dues are being spent and whether their union actually represents their own values.

Union financial transparency is not a new concept. In 1959, Congress passed the Federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act in an attempt to curtail corruption in private-sector unions of the day. This union financial disclosure law, however, excluded state and local public-sector unions from reporting unless those public unions represent any private-sector work-ers.

This exception opened a doorway for the U.S. Depart-ment of Labor to expand reporting requirements when it began updating its LMRDA filing rules in 2003. During that process, the department mandated that state-level public-sector unions—traditionally held as exempt from reporting—begin to disclose their finances if they are affiliated with national unions subject to federal dis-closure. The agency also revised the annual financial disclosure forms for the first time in four decades and posted received forms on a searchable website, allow-ing workers to access their unions’ income and expendi-tures easily for the first time.

Several state teacher unions filed suit against the rule changes. However, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer held that the Department of Labor simply need-ed to—and did—provide a reasonable legal justification for its reinterpretation of the law.

by Scott DilleyCourt�rules�in�favor�of�increased�union�transparency

U The department argued that its ac-tions were consistent with Congress’s intent to have increased reporting and that, under the revised rules, private-sector unionized employees could track how their dues payments may be transferred from a national-level union to a lower, state-union affiliate or another union.

States do not need to wait for federal laws or lawsuits to ensure that workers in their states have the right to know about union finances. Thirteen states already have some form of financial disclosure for state- and local-level public-sector unions. The remaining states, includ-ing Washington, should give serious consideration to similar reforms.

Financial transparency is essential for good steward-ship. If there is no information and transparency, there is no accountability. Public employees cannot make in-formed decisions about the benefits of union representa-tion unless they know the details of a union’s income and expenditures. Workers and the general public have the right to know.

Random thoughts…

o you enjoy being sick? Me either. I don’t believe in it, won’t tolerate it.

So, I don’t get sick.I also don’t have a personal physician. Tylenol PM is

the closest thing I have to a doctor. That’s how much I hate the idea of being sick.

Until a couple of weeks ago. It was no big deal…just a gawdawful headcold straight from Hades. Thought I had it whipped one day until it smacked me down for a second time the next. It’s not treating me well today, either, as I write this. I am entirely unamused.

God and I need to have a heart-to-heart. It just probably won’t take place in church tomorrow.

Which leads me to thinking about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. At the risk of saying, “what’s he thinking” or worse, I won’t say anything.

From the Seattle P-I:

• Frustrated by the state and federal gridlock on solving Seattle’s transportation prob-lems, Mayor Greg Nickels suggested secession at a Thursday luncheon.

• “Our region should declare its independence,” Nick-els said.

• The Puget Sound regional economy makes up 67 percent of the state’s economic activity, he said. “If we were a country, [our economy] would be just a little smaller than Thailand. We would be larger than Colombia, Venezuela. We are held back because our state and federal government still believe our econ-omies are driven by wheat farms and timber log-ging.”

• Nickels spoke as part of a CityClub round table at Town Hall with Bellevue Mayor Grant Degginger and Redmond Mayor John Marchione.

So the dictator of a “country” slightly less important than Thailand is suggesting independence.

See ya! Of course, Nickels wasn’t serious, but he demonstrated

clearly just how out of touch Seattle is with the rest of the state. State Senators Bob Morton and Bob McCaslin routinely introduce legislation in Olympia calling for the secession of Eastern Washington from the rest of the state.

They are trying to make a point. The point is that the Seattle area runs all things important in Olympia and if Nickels isn’t happy with things that way, perhaps he should talk more seriously with his political cohorts from Puget Sound who actually run things these days.

House Speaker Frank Chopp comes to mind. Last time I checked, he’s from Seattle.

But, I understand how the Mayor’s mind is working. I’m a city kid.

Grew up in Chicago. Food came from the Kroger’s that my Mother always

went to for shopping. Milk came from the milkman who would drop a couple of gallons into the bin a couple of times a week. Coffee came from my grandfather – who loved the stuff and introduced it to me – with cream and sugar. (As part of my youthful rebellion, I drink it black now.)

Anyway, I understood agriculture!

by Tom Henry

We all have our points of ignorance. We just don’t need to make a spectacle of it. I don’t know what Mayor Nickels has against wheat farmers or the good folks in the timber industry, but I’d suggest that he get out of the city lines of Seattle once in a while. There is an interesting world out there and he might do himself some good to look at something other than the Space Needle.

Which gets me on to another rant.As I write, it is snowing in Olympia. April 19th , and it’s

snowing. And it is sticking to the streets and the grass. Al Gore isn’t here to explain it. The TV wiseguys are telling me it has never snowed this late in the year in the lowlands of western Washington. Terrific. Guess, what? It’s snowing.

And it’s baseball season, for crying out loud.We had snow this morning that stuck and melted. Now

it is snowing again…and sticking.The governor pushed through legislation this

legislative session ordering Washington to take steps to combat “climate change,” a new euphemism for global

warming or global cooling. Take your choice. It will all be aimed at air pollution. Air pollution either reflects warming sunlight back into space, producing global cooling, or traps warmth into the atmosphere,

producing global warming. Pick your crisis.The governor wants 25,000 new “green jobs” in

Washington state. She wants us to cut our per capita driving down by 50 percent between now and 2050. I have no doubt that I will do my part in that last thing, since I’ll be dead by then.

But I digress.It is one thing to set a goal, like John F. Kennedy did,

to place a man on the moon by the end of a decade. That is a technological feat that may or may not be possible. It is something else entirely to set a goal to change an entire population’s behavior in the face of day-to-day realities. Particularly when you have no idea what you are talking about. Even if it sounds good.

Perhaps it is time for well-intentioned political gurus to assess their goals against the realities of how the rest of us want to live our lives.

In the meantime, I still don’t have a doctor to handle this stupid head cold. If I had to guess, I’ll get over it anyway.

D

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

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 confirmation 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!

I would like to give a one time gift of $

next episode: Thursday, may 22, 2008

topic: education in Washington state

invited Guests: lynn harsh, Ceo evergreen Freedom FoundationDavid Goldstein, political blogger & former radio talk show hostAndrew Coulson, CATo institute

Freedom matters will be broadcast live the fourth Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m. from EFF’s Media Studio in Olympia, Washington. If you are interested in participating live with one of our remote audiences, please contact Juliana McMahan, Citizen Action Network Director, at JMcMahan@effwa.org or 360-956-3482.

• Linktowatchlivepro-gram (available the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m.)

• Archivedshows• TVscheduleforlocalcom-

munity access channels• Moreinformation

Please visit our website at www.freedommatters.tv for:

12 LIVING LIBERTY

P l a n n i n g f o r L i f e A complimeNtAry workshop for eff members ANd frieNds

purpose Responding to requests from EFF members, this work-shop is presented for those who want to know how to make plans to protect hard-earned assets now as well as when the end of life comes. Perhaps you have never gotten around to doing this. Maybe you have a plan that needs a tune-up. If you are unsure that your estate plan is complete and up to date, this workshop will give you new ideas and tools that work. The presenters have been carefully selected. Each is expert in his field. And they both love liberty!

Please feel free to bring your attorney or other pro-fessional family advisor. No services are sold at this workshop. No one will ask you to sign up for anything. The entire day is free, including lunch. It will be a day full of great information and good conversation. EFF President Bob Williams will be in attendance. We look forward to having you with us.

Protect assets from taxes (especially the death tax)Learn about Charitable Remainder TrustsLearn about Living Trusts, wills and annuitiesUse your life values in estate planningChoose the right tools for your particular situationLearn where to get help

Topics

Attendance is limited to 40 people. Please RSVP by contact-ing Laurie at 1-800-769-6617 or IEndicott@effwa.org

bellevue

Alan W. Pratt, CEP, CAPFounder, Pratt Legacy Advisors, specializing in family wealth preservation through his Legacy Planning from the Heart seminars.

William C. Larson, MBA, AIFATwenty years of wealth manage-ment, helping clients transform complexity into opportunity and build a lasting legacy consistent with their values.

PRESENTERS

Thursday, June 5, 2008

The Harbor Club

West Cascade Room

9:30 a.m. - 4 p.m.

RSVP please by June 2

Symetra Financial Building,

25th Floor

777 108th Avenue NE

Bellevue, WA 98004

Complimentary buffet luncheon

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!

Validated parking under building. Take elevator from parking garage to lobby, exit left, take elevator marked 15-25. The Harbor Club Bellevue is on the 25th floor.