living liberty october 2007

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

navigating the fiscal rapids 3 tales of sunshine 9

LIVING LIBERTYOCTOBER 2007 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

supreme court victory continues to resonate 5

Continued on page 2

F

Average Public- vs. Private-Sector Wages – 2005(amounts rounded to nearest dollar)

CountyAverage Individual Private-

Sector WageAverage Individual Public-

Sector WageDifference

Adams 29,491 38,660 9,169

Asotin 29,735 38,443 8,708

Benton 46,223 57,026 10,803

Chelan 30,828 50,648 19,820

Clallam 26,789 48,098 21,309

Clark 39,132 52,323 13,191

Columbia 26,609 43,259 16,650

Cowlitz 39,685 45,260 5,575

Douglas 28,548 48,970 20,422

Ferry 20,258 42,312 22,054

Franklin 34,933 47,283 12,350

Garfield 19,997 49,273 29,276

Grant 28,149 48,837 20,688

Grays Harbor 32,407 43,468 11,061

Island 23,153 67,943 44,790

Jefferson 25,268 45,890 20,622

King 59,048 58,399 -649

Kitsap 30,828 72,424 41,596

Kittitas 27,573 44,660 17,087

Klickitat 28,692 43,489 14,797

Lewis 32,574 42,564 9,990

Lincoln 22,408 38,247 15,839

Mason 28,190 43,968 15,778

Okanogan 24,487 43,180 18,693Pacific 20,943 45,898 24,955

Pend Oreille 34,411 45,615 11,204

Pierce 39,765 63,011 23,246

San Juan 22,721 41,985 19,264

Skagit 37,681 44,720 7,039

Skamania 24,824 45,494 20,670

Snohomish 43,864 54,056 10,192

Spokane 36,014 52,825 16,811

Stevens 27,346 43,127 15,781

Thurston 34,025 54,642 20,617

Wahkiakum 21,792 40,035 18,243

Walla Walla 31,234 51,338 20,104

Whatcom 34,762 46,574 11,812

Whitman 26,650 44,420 17,770

Yakima 32,361 46,267 13,906

Total Average: 30,856 48,067 17,211

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

or several years running, the average wage for a government employee has topped that of a private-

sector employee in Washington state. Data from the Bu-reau of Economic Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce shows a continued contrast between the two sectors.

The latest figures serve as a reminder of the continuing average pay inequity between public and private economic spheres.

Recent data from 2005 indicates the average individual salary for a public-sector worker in Washington was $48,067, while private-sector workers made an average of $30,856–a difference of $17,211.

King County, home of higher-wage industries like Microsoft and Boeing, is the only county to have slightly higher private-sector earnings–an average of $649 more than the public sector.

Unlike the private sector, the public sector operates according to rules that do not include competition, efficiency or scarcity. Government lacks competition–the only real way to create price equilibrium and efficiency. Unlike a private business that has limited resources to cover its costs, elected officials can simply raise taxes or fees.

by Derek Archer and Scott Dilley

Wage Disparity Continues

a tale of tWo Washingtons:

PrIvATe-SeCTOr FIGureS In THe CHArT ABOve Are AverAGeS OF eMPLOYeeS FrOM ALL nOn-FArM InDuSTrIeS. PuBLIC-SeCTOr FIGureS InCLuDe FeDerAL, STATe, AnD LOCAL GOvernMenT WAGeS. THe InFOrMATIOn IS MeAnT TO GIve An InDICATIOn OF THe DISPArITY BeTWeen THe TWO SeCTOrS, nOT TO PrOvIDe A COMPreHenSIve COM-PArISOn OF WAGe rATeS OF SPeCIFIC POSITIOnS BeTWeen THe SeCTOrS.

2 LIVING LIBERTY

34567

89

101112

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

Fax (360) 352-1874 [email protected] • www.effwa.org

VOLUME 17, Issue 10

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

this issue

3 LETTER FROM LYNN NAVIGATING THE FISCAL RAPIDS

4 A SURE SIGN OF FALL: A THREATENED TEACHER’S STRIKE NEA REQUEST FOR 75% APPROVAL FOR TEACHER PERFORMANCE PAY IRONIC 5 SCHIP EXPANSION: ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE EFF’S SUPREME COURT VICTORY CONTINUES TO RESONATE...IN COLORADO 6 TOW THE LINE AND TIP YOUR HAT PERFORMANCE AUDIT FINDS FERRY UNIONS RUN THE SHOW

7 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PERFORMANCE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS A MONUMENTAL MONTH FOR WASHINGTON TRANSPORTATION POLICY 8 WHY DON’T PEOPLE CARE? INITIATIVE 25: CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF KING COUNTY’S ELECTION DIVISION

9 FREE TO CHOOSE: AMERICANS NEED CHOICE WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTHCARE TALES OF SUNSHINE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE HAS BUMPY BUT REVEALING START

10 RANDOM THOUGHTS 11 USE YOUR IRA TO CHAMPION LIBERTY

12 JOIN US FOR A PLANNING FOR LIFE WORKSHOP

Publisher:Tom Henry

Editor:Tom Henry

Layout:Joel Sorrell

“The audit did not make recommendations pertaining to outsourcing because of the significant opportunities within the Ferry

system for improved efficiency, effectiveness and economy. The audit report contains

recommendations to institute these opportunities and improvements. However, if these

recommendations are not put in place, the Legislature should consider transferring these

services to the private sector” – Washington State Auditor’s Office, Washington

State Ferry Audit

In addition, public-sector labor unions now collectively bargain for higher wages for state and local government workers. Unions represent 60.2 percent of government workers in Washington, compared to just 13.2 percent in private industries. Since government does not need to adjust quickly to changes in market forces and can increase its income through higher taxes and fees, unions have found the public sector has deeper pockets than the private sector.

Since government is insulated from critical market pressures, it can create and sustain wage gaps between its workers and those in the private sector. Public-sector

labor unions negotiate with the same lawmakers to whom they give campaign contributions. The owners–taxpayers–see the labor contracts only after the deals are struck and have to foot the bill.

Policymakers need to remember to spend government funds efficiently and set performance measures for agencies and employees. Whenever possible, government agencies should contract out services to private companies. Paying a public employee to do the equivalent of a private-sector job simply siphons money away from taxpayers and fails to grow the overall economy.

Two Washingtons continued from page 1 . . .

“Public-sector labor unions

negotiate with the same lawmakers

to whom they give campaign contributions.”

“ The bottom line is that the ferry system in our state is a monopolized mess.”

Pg. 7


Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LY NNby Lynn Harsh

Tnavigating the fiscal rapids

he brownish-green water of the Millrace bordering the University of Oregon was where I

learned to navigate a canoe. It was also the first place (and not the last) where I unceremoniously dumped myself overboard—with two passengers. We were too preoccupied cooing over the cute ducks and college boys sharing the waterway to notice that the three of us had moved to the same side of the canoe at the same time. It was an up-close-and-personal experience with algae and duck doo. At least the water was calm.

Not so navigating through the whitewater I later learned to love. The dangers encountered in getting dumped over the side under those conditions are large rocks and sucking vortexes.

That’s the visual image that immediately came to my mind one evening, propped up in bed with pillows, reading David Walker’s latest long-range report on the American economy (No smart-aleck comments, please.)

Walker is the comptroller general of the U.S. It’s his job to total up government’s current and future revenue and spending obligations. He reports his findings to Congress, but since so few of them appear to be listening, he’s taken his report on the road straight to the American people.

I read his latest report shortly after listening to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan bemoan the fiscal short-sightedness of most members of Congress, followed closely by Treasury Secretary Paulson warning Congress that the current debt limit of $8.965 trillion would be reached on October 1. (The current U.S. debt, by the way, totals $30,000 for every American citizen.)

Hence, the feeling of being dumped out of a canoe in a churning maelstrom of whitewater.

Like Walker, Greenspan notes that we do not face an immediate financial crisis. It’s the upcoming crash between demographics and baby-boomer entitlements that presents the serious problem that Congress as a body seems determined to ignore.

A disclaimer is in order here. Walker is an accountant. Greenspan is an economist. Both professions are magnets for people whose temperaments can obsess with finding the needles in haystacks while ignoring the haystack itself. On several occasions, for example, editorials in the Wall Street Journal have taken both men to task for predicting pessimistic future outcomes in the face of unprecedented economic growth.

Maybe. But both men are prudent, intelligent, experienced and respectful of the American model of citizen sovereigns and free markets. We should not dismiss their data and attendant warnings, even if their projected outcomes are not absolutely certain.

Furthermore, let’s assume for a moment that technology and a global marketplace increase efficiency enough to allow our economy to grow at unprecedented rates regardless of decreased American literacy and workforce size. If this were to happen, does it mean that the profligate spending done by Congress and state elected officials should continue on its irresponsible pattern? Will the chickens never come home to roost? You know they will.

When it comes to economic growth, we need to reject the counterproductive notion that our elected officials have the wisdom or the right to determine how much of our income we “need,” thus allowing them to take the rest through taxes and fees to redistribute to others.

Back to Walker: He says that from 2008-2028, 78 million Americans will become “dependents of the U.S. taxpayer” as they become eligible for pensions and Medicare.

“The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement [in] January 1, 2008,” reports Walker. They’ll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don’t get serious.”

Walker illustrates the demographic problem by contrasting the cost of entitlements promised to baby boomers with too few upcoming wage earners to provide the necessary revenue. His deepest concern is Medicare.

In a recent 60-Minutes interview, Walker described the specifics to reporter Steve Kroft, noting that medical costs increase as people live longer, and that those costs continue to rise at twice the rate of inflation. He says Congress and the President exacerbated the situation by passing the mammoth prescription drug bill—what Walker says is “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” (Amen!)

Walker notes that the bill added eight trillion dollars to a program already under-funded by 15 to $20 trillion. He told Kroft, “We’d have to have eight trillion dollars today, invested in treasury notes, to deliver on that promise.” (No money is invested today.) Add to this the small amount of savings most Americans have, and Walker sees a recipe for what he calls “unprecedented fiscal risks” if action is not taken.

On the other hand, the U.S. economy is larger today than almost anyone predicted several decades ago. The real issue is uncertainty: what will the next administration do in terms of creating more entitlements, higher taxes, increased tariffs, and new business regulations? Those are the elements that strangle an economy. Bad sailors here at homeUnlike much of the country, Washington state is enjoying another quarter in what is now four years of an

economy doing better than expected. Dr. Chang Mook Sohn, the top economist for our state’s forecast council, believes state revenues can be revised upwards by $282 million. It’s news that creates near euphoria among advocates of bigger government.

Sadly, their euphoria borders on pathological. Since Christine Gregoire became our governor, state spending has increased by more than 25 percent, while revenue has increased about half that amount. The majority party and our governor blew through a $2.1 billion surplus, promised future expenditures of close to another billion, and skipped pension payments to superficially balance the budget. (Taxpayers will have to make up lost interest and/or stock gains besides the skipped payments.)

Pouring salt into the wounds: About 60 percent of state workers are now unionized, and public-sector workers in Washington state now make $17,211 more on average annually than employees in the private sector who help support them. This isn’t sustainable.

It won’t be euphoria big-spending lawmakers will be feeling when state revenue growth slows long before the consequences of their spending spree end. Long-range spending trends indicate this is inevitable in the not-too-distant future.

The bad news is that the majority of lawmakers are now clustering on the same side of the boat, and they think the smooth fiscal waters around them will stay that way as long as they man the oars. But…a roar can be heard in the distance.

If we can’t stop the big-spenders from rocketing over the falls and capsizing into the fiscal whitewater below, we can at least be ready for the moment and take over the boat while they are thrashing around in the disaster of their own making.

“ the real issue is uncertainty: what will the next administration do in terms of creating more entitlements, higher taxes, increased tariffs, and new business regulations? Those are the ele-ments that strangle an economy.”

4 LIVING LIBERTY

by Steven MaggiA sure sign of fall: A threatened teacher’s strike

R

alk about a double standard! In Congress, the House Committee on Education and Labor re-

cently released a reauthorization draft regarding the No Child Left Behind legislation. It contains provisions that could result, in some limited cases, in the impo-sition of a performance-based pay program for teach-ers. Actually, this program would simply allow grants to study the effectiveness of pay performance.

Of course, this is a major threat to the NEA. So much of a threat that they are calling for a 75 percent majority vote of affected teachers to allow such a program. 75 percent! These are the same people who tell us in Washington that a simple majority vote is the only fair way to address the issue of school levies.

On November 6, voters in Washington will decide whether to lower the passing percentage on school levies from a supermajority of 60 percent to a simple majority of 50 percent.

The union states that it is simply a matter of fairness. They feel that the public has the right to have its vote count the same, for or against. Isn’t it ironic how those percentages change when the vote is on a different topic?

The issue is really less about super majority versus simple majority, but instead the fact that the union insists that special elections be conducted during months when few people are paying attention rather than in the general election in November. The real question is: Should major tax increases be imposed with approval from a small percentage of those affected?

eminders of fall and the opening school year are everywhere: images of crusty brown leaves, har-

vest-ripe apples, newly sharpened pencils and more notebook paper than your child will ever use. So what will students be learning from their teachers? Let me give you a hint: it’s not algebra. You’ve guessed it—teacher strikes.

The teachers of the Bethel Education Association, as well as the Shoreline district, had opted to stay home for a while in hopes of forcing their union’s agenda. These strikes, while settled rather quickly, affected more than 18,000 students. In Bethel, the teachers were already expecting increases in pay this year and next year, but they argued that they needed more money to compete with other districts. They got it.

Bethel union president Tom Cruver had an interesting perspective on the issue: “We know that teachers have always put kids first and we’d still love to put kids first, but there are times you have to stand up for what’s important.”

Nice to know that when it really comes down to it, according to the union, what’s really important is their pay.

We believe that teacher’s pay is an area that should be examined. There are many fine teachers that are, indeed, underpaid. However, it is the very system instituted and protected by the teacher’s union that is the reason. A system of increased pay for seniority only offers no incentive for teachers and is a disincentive for new teachers entering the profession.

In a unionized sector, the world of education is under constant threat of employee strikes over this, that, and

the other. Surely there is a better way to negotiate teacher salaries than this unproductive means but, hey, I’m sure little Bobby or little Suzy will understand—they do the same thing when Mom won’t give them cookies before dinner.

Recent affirmation by Attorney General Rob McKenna may set your mind at ease.

“In Washington, state and local public employees do not have a legally protected right to strike. No such right existed at common law, and none has been granted by statute.” It is encouraging to note that Governor Christine Gregoire seconds this stand.

Teacher strikes are illegal. End of “negotiation”. As a matter of public policy, public employees should not withhold essential services in order to increase their bargaining clout. Though some believe that McKenna’s statement is merely opinion, the state’s public employees’ collective bargaining law states that: “Nothing contained in this chapter shall permit or grant any public employee the right to strike or refuse to perform his official duties.” (RCW 41.56.120) Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Washington has affirmed this statute on multiple occasions.

Rather than setting an example that goes contrary to the law of the land, shouldn’t teachers be in the classroom teaching kids? It’s time for legislators to step in and end this abuse of state law and, more importantly, this abuse of students. Teacher strikes should no longer be tolerated by any taxpaying citizen of Washington State.

September 5, 2007

Letters to the Editor, Living LibertyP.O. Box 552Olympia, WA 98507

Dear Editor,

In the August 2007 issue of Living Liberty, there was an article entitled “Flunked”. This article gave me an idea that I hope the Evergreen Freedom Foundation might pursue.

Conduct a survey of public schooled, private schooled and home schooled kids. This survey would show the successes (and failures) of these various forms of learning. The testing should be on three levels:• WASL Test Scores for all tested skills by schooling• SAT Test Scores by schooling• College Graduation percentage as opposed to Col-

lege Dropout Rates by schoolingThe testing results could be numeric SAT or WASL test

score based upon overall scores by schooling or could be a percentage ranking of test scores by schooling.

With this testing and ranking, we could determine once and for all whether government schools are worth the money. Are we regulating students to mediocrity because of the schooling received, or are students getting a good education and our education tax dollars well spent?

I don’t know how far back you can reach for past test scores so this might take a few years to achieve, but I firmly believe the results will be worth it. Thank you.

Ardean A. Anvik

EDUCATIONNEWS

by Steven MaggiNEA request for 75% approval for teacher performance pay ironic

T Does 22% of voter approval constitute fairness? That is the exact percentage that voted in Bellevue in 2002 when property taxes went up to fund a $324 million school construction bond. While the measure passed with a 73% majority of the voters participating, participation was so low in the special election that the approval amounted to just 22% of registered voters.

Now the city’s school officials want another half-billion dollars for construction and repair. The proposed $495 million construction bond, the largest in the district’s history, would be on the ballot in a special election next spring.

The truth is special elections mean lower voter turnout —a lot lower. While 2/3 of registered voters cast a ballot in the general elections (held in November), often less than 30 percent turn out for the less routine special elections held in the spring.

While so few make the decision, many bear the cost. As reported in the Seattle Times, if the $495 million bond is put on the ballot and approved next spring, property taxes will increase about 25 percent, from $2.00 per $1,000 assessed value to $2.50. That means owners of a house in Bellevue valued at $400,000 will pay an additional $200 a year.

Such an important issue, involving such a significant tax increase, should be put on the ballot when voters are most likely to be informed and involved—during the general elections in November. Or maybe we can take the lead from the NEA, and require a 75 percent approval rating.

Letters to the editor

“ The union states that it is simply a matter of fairness. They feel that the public has the right to have its vote count the same, for or against. Isn’t it ironic how those percentages change when the vote is on a different topic?”


by Devon Herrick and Matt BaumannSCHIP Expansion: Robin Hood in Reverse

T

wo major legal barriers ultimately stopped Colo-radans from receiving paycheck protection last

year. A unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court this year has all but pulverized one of them.

In August 2006, then-Secretary of State Gigi Dennis promulgated a rule to clarify the state’s campaign finance law. Her Rule 1.14(b) defined the member of an organization as one who “at least annually gives the membership organization specific written permission

he State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which covers 6.7 million children and

adults, will expire in September. SCHIP consists of 50 different federal-state health plans for children (and in some states adults) in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Typically, families with incomes above the poverty level, but no more than 200 percent of poverty, are eli-gible.

The Senate Finance Committee recently voted to reauthorize the program. The Senate bill would expand eligibility to children in families with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or $62,000 for a family of four. House Democrats would raise income limits even higher — to 400 percent of the poverty level ($83,000 for a family of four) — well above the median income. [See the figure.]

SCHIP expansion would be costly. The Senate bill would increase spending by $35 billion over five years and the House Democrats would increase spending by more than $50 billion. However, the additional money would mainly buy insurance for children who are already insured. In fact, the families of millions of children currently in SCHIP would have otherwise had private coverage, and most of the children that would be newly eligible already have private coverage. Furthermore, the cost of expansion would be borne by poor families and seniors.

Unnecessary Benefit. Most uninsured chil-dren are already eligible for SCHIP or Medic-aid. More than 8 million children lack coverage at some point during the year, and it is estimat-ed that about 70 percent of these may qualify for pub-lic coverage. However, the duration of uninsured spells tends to be short, and only 4.9 million children are un-insured for the entire year. According to the Congressio-nal Budget Office (CBO), of the children who are unin-sured for an entire year: • More than one million children currently qualify for

public coverage but are not enrolled. • Another 1.1 million do not qualify because they are

illegal (or temporary) immigrants. • About 403,000 are income-eligible immigrants who

have not been legal residents long enough to qualify for Medicaid benefits.

SCHIP expansion would do nothing to increase enrollment among children who are already eligible, and most of the additional children are already covered by private insurance.

Cost: Less Private Coverage. Estimates vary, but virtually everyone agrees that expanding “free” (or highly subsidized) public insurance crowds out private insurance. For instance: • Between half and three-quarters of spending on

Medicaid expansions in the 1990s went to people who would have been privately insured, according to economist Jonathan Gruber.

• Up to 60 percent of spending on SCHIP is for people who otherwise would have been privately insured, according to Gruber’s research.

For the new legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 25 percent to 50 percent of new SCHIP funds will go to children in families who would otherwise have private coverage. Gruber’s estimate suggests the crowd-out rate will be much higher. Also, most of the newly eligible children already have insurance: • In families earning 200 percent to 300 percent of the

poverty-level income, 77 percent of children already have private coverage, according to the CBO.

• In families earning 300 percent to 400 percent of poverty, 90 percent of children are already covered by private health insurance.

The parents of children targeted for expansion have shown they want insurance coverage for their children badly enough to pay for it. On the other hand, since millions of uninsured children who already qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP have not enrolled, it is entirely possibly most of the new spending will replace existing private coverage.

Cost: Less Health Care for Children. When their parents trade “free” coverage for private coverage, millions of children will have less access to care. The reason: Most SCHIP patients have less access than pri-vately insured patients because the programs pay doc-tors the same, low reimbursement rates as Medicaid

pays. A recent study found that two-thirds of Medicaid patients are unable to obtain an appointment for urgent ambulatory care, and in three-fourths of the cases, the

reason is that the provider does not accept Med-icaid. SCHIP enrollees face similar problems ac-cessing care. Cost: Less Health Care for Seniors. To off-set the costs of insuring middle-class youngsters, some House Democrats have proposed cutting funds for Medicare Advantage plans in which an increasing number of seniors are enrolled — cur-rently about one in five. These plans provide com-prehensive coverage to low-income seniors who can’t afford supplemental insurance to fill the gaps in traditional Medicare. On average, Medicare Ad-vantages enrollees receive about $1,032 per year in additional benefits. Half of Medicare Advantage enrollees have incomes below $20,000, and one-fourth are minorities. Reducing funding for these plans would reduce the medical benefits available to many low-income and minority seniors.

Cost: Higher Taxes on the Poor. The Sen-ate Finance Committee proposes to fund SCHIP expansion by hiking the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents a pack. Lower-income people are more likely to smoke than upper-income individuals. In fact, families in the lowest fifth of the income distribu-tion spend 10 times as much of their earnings on tobacco as families in the highest fifth. Thus, the principal source of funding for middle-class kids would be taxes on the poor.

Cost: Higher Taxes on Future Genera-tions. Federal health spending is already out of control and SCHIP expansion will not help. In

2002, government spending on health care was nearly 7 percent of gross domestic product. Without significant reforms in Medicare, Medicaid and other programs, fed-eral health outlays are on a course to increase to one-third of GDP by midcentury. The CBO estimates income taxes paid by the middle-class will reach 66 percent by 2050, and marginal tax rates for the highest earners will reach 92 percent!

Worse, the House bill would also remove a key provision of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act that requires the president and Congress to address out-of-control spending on senior health care. The law currently contains a “trigger” that requires the president to propose an appropriate reform and Congress to consider that proposal on a fast-track when Medicare’s finances deteriorates to a certain level — which has been reached.

Conclusion. The increase in federal spending on health insurance for kids will go largely to children who could have had private coverage anyway. Yet under SCHIP, these children will have less access to care than they currently have. Funding for this effort will come from people who have less income than the families who will benefit. And future generations are being ignored.

by Ben DeGrowEFF’s Supreme Court victory continues to resonate...in Colorado

T to transfer dues to a political committee or small donor committee.”

Small donor committees are a specific creation of Amendment 27, a constitutional change in campaign finance law ratified by Colorado voters in 2002. These committees can receive no more than $50 per donor per year, but can make 10 times larger contributions directly to candidates than citizens or other committees can.

The small donor committee is a tailor-made mechanism for labor unions, which can deposit money from each

member (or, in some cases, non-member) paycheck in small periodic increments. Because the individual “contributions” are made in amounts less than $20, the names of union “contributors” to small donor committees are not reported.

The large transfers of anonymous funds into labor union small donor committees helped to prompt Secretary Dennis to issue Rule 1.14(b). She made the case that the

Continued on page 8

6 LIVING LIBERTY

f any of you policy junkies waded through the recent ferry performance audit, then you were probably left

as hopping mad as I was. For the normal people read-ing this column, you’re about to get the low down. In so many words, the audit both explicitly and implicitly names the unions as the grand Maharajas of the Wash-ington State Ferries (WSF) system.

Sixteen labor unions represent 1,600 full time equivalent employees with collective bargaining agreements varying by trade, specialty or location within WSF. For the fuzzy math specialists like myself, that averages out to 100 employees for each union and a whole lot of painful “bargaining.”

You see, since the state regulated private ferry operators out of business about 50 years ago, unions are the new bosses.

The first nine audit findings and recommendations concern the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility, where most ferry maintenance is conducted. The audit explicitly states: “Eagle Harbor’s Staffing model and collective bargaining agreements are not structured to provide WSF with the most efficient and economical benefits.”

You mean CBAs aren’t in the interest of efficiency and economy? No, they are not. Need some convincing? Finding #1 of the audit notes that overtime costs at Eagle Harbor totaled $1 million for fiscal year 2006, or 12% of the facility’s total labor costs. Eagle Harbor operates a single shift during normal business hours only. According to the CBAs, work conducted outside normal daytime work hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. is billed as overtime. The trouble is most ferries are being used during those hours since daytime is when the majority of people commute.

It gets better. The second finding concerns the breakdown of direct labor charges for vessel and terminal maintenance and indirect labor charges for administrative time, clean up, training, etc. Current CBAs dictate that tradesmen receive a full eight hours of pay. When there is not enough direct work during the normal shift for an employee, indirect work codes are charged. At Eagle Harbor, these indirect charges have topped 25 percent of total labor charges for the past three years.

So here we have a system “negotiated” by the unions mandating eight hours of pay between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. When there is not enough work (25 percent of the time) employees clean. After 3:30 when the ferry boats start coming in, there is too much work and everyone gets paid overtime.

The audit suggests a two-shift labor model to solve this puzzler and better align maintenance supply with

demand. This would curtail both overtime charges and time charged to indirect work codes, for an estimated savings of approximately $3.5 to $4.5 million over the next ten years.

The audit notes that “WSF will need to work with labor negotiators to change the CBAs where necessary to support recommendations to establish a more cost-effective work schedule that minimizes overtime and increases productive work periods.”

Amen. We actually need this recommendation in writing? The real question is why hasn’t this been done already?

To condense another long set of findings, some notable highlights include the fact that Eagle Harbor was found to have insufficient performance indicators for efficiently managing resources. Basically this means they are not able to justify the costs with the levels of service provided to taxpayers. Also, the audit noted that management oversight at Eagle Harbor is insufficient. Only two of out of 115 positions at the facility are filled by WSF management. As a result, many management decisions are made by non-management personnel reducing efficiency and cost savings considerations to the bottom of the priority list.

The final audit recommendation suggests eliminating low-volume ferry runs to save more than $9 million annually in operating costs. Noting the primary causes for WSF’s excessive level of service, the audit points out that some round trips are conducted to meet requirements of union contracts. In fact, in some cases, “the crewing schedules dictate vessel departure schedules in order for WSF to minimize overtime costs or crew travel costs.”

The audit also notes that state transportation business plans seek to achieve a specific level of service rather than cost efficiency. Therefore, “economic factors such as rationalizing supply with demand are not included.”

The bottom line is that the ferry system in our state is a monopolized mess. Insufficient performance indicators, accountability and control weaknesses, management oversight problems and burdensome collective bargaining agreements bog down a system already at a disadvantage because of its inherently anti-competitive and monopolized nature.

Unfortunately these are not new findings. Past and present legislatures and governors repeatedly ignored similar audit findings—ignored them for the last 20 years in a row, in fact.

Of course, all these problems would disappear if WSF were privatized. It is unfortunate that the audit did not seriously consider transferring some WSF services to the private sector, even though it is a required element of I-900 • WSF accounts for more than

25 percent of the Department of Transportation budget;

• WSF operating and capital budget for 2007-09 biennium: $699,928,000;

• Since 2000, WSF has expe-rienced declining passenger and vehicle traffic volumes from 26.9 to 23.8 million;

• Between 2003 and 2006 operational expenses have increased 5.1 percent;

• WSF has ignored 20 consecu-tive SAO audits on not prop-erly accounting for ferry fares.

Thankfully, if the performance audit recommendations are implemented, taxpayers may save more than $100 million over the next ten years. The governor and the legislature must take action to ensure enforcement of these recommendations, as the ferry system has a history of ignoring them. The system appears to be organized to keep union workers happy as opposed to providing quality service in an economical, efficient, and effective manner. Washington taxpayers will have to put pressure on their elected officials to clean up the system.

ferry background facts at a glance

toW the line anD tip your hat: by Amber Gunn performanCe auDit finDs ferry unions run the shoW

I

“the bottom line is that the ferry system in our state

is a monopolized mess. Insufficient performance indicators,

accountability and control weaknesses, management oversight problems and

burdensome collective bargaining agreements bog down a system

already at a disadvantage because of its inherently anti-competitive and

monopolized nature.”


ur state’s second performance audit reveals that the health of Washington citizens continues to

be at risk because of major leadership and superviso-ry weaknesses in the Health Professions Quality Assur-ance (HPQA) system. HPQA licenses and disciplines doctors, nurses, and other healthcare pro-fessions and is overseen by the Depart-ment of Health.

The 13 findings are followed up with sweeping recommendations for changes in the HPQA governance structure, credentialing process, and criminal background checks with an aim toward promoting effective performance management and improving patient safety.

State laws divide regulatory authority for healthcare professions between HPQA and 16 boards and commissions. The audit clearly finds that this divided governance structure “does not provide for clear lines of performance management and accountability.”

Health Secretary Mary Selecky and her department have done a good job initiating corrective actions so far. However, she does not have the authority to mandate a performance-based management system, as noted in the audit.

The audit recommends amending the legislatively created agreement between HPQA and the boards and commissions to require performance-based provisions.

The audit weighs HPQA’s performance management system against a specific set of criteria that included

questions such as, “Is it results-oriented?” and “Does it focus primarily on outcomes and outputs?” and other qualities that successful private entities practice intuitively. Disappointingly, the overall audit findings determined that HPQA lacked “critical elements of

good performance measures, such as defined targets, documented definitions, and methodology for data collection and calculation.” The audit also found that performance data may be inaccurate since HPQA lacks internal controls over data collection and reporting.

To improve performance, the audit recommends developing a performance management system that contains outcome, output, and efficiency measures. And that is where you and I get our money’s worth.

The audit included other taxpayer-friendly recommendations such as best practices or

promising practices of other states that could be applied in Washington.

For example, after finding that the Arizona Medical Board pays community physicians a flat fee to consult on routine standard-of-care complaints and investigations, the audit recommends that HPQA do the same. This practice would help eliminate the backlog of complaint investigations that are delayed by processing issues, staffing shortages and other problems.

In a refreshingly new twist for government, “outsource” and “privatize” were well-oiled words throughout the audit. The audit recommends that HPQA conduct national background checks, and that these checks be

The state auditor’s office is sched-uled to release four transportation performance audits at roughly the

same time ballots will be mailed out for this fall’s RTID vote. RTID,

short for Regional Transportation Investment District, is a $16 billion transportation plan that will be up

for a vote in King, Pierce, and Sno-homish counties.

Each of the four audits is listed with its release date, author, and

brief description. Three of the audits were called for by the nickel

gas tax increase, but all will meet the requirements of I-900.

The audit deadlines have already been pushed back to the dates listed below. Future delays in

releasing the reports are possible. EFF will comment on these

audits when they are released.

oct. 3.sound transit. Talbot, Korvola & Warwick LLP.

This audit will focus on whether Sound Transit is effectively plan-ning, designing and managing the light rail project. The audit will look at efforts to minimize costs and evaluate whether the project is similar to what was communicated to voters in 1996.

oct. 3.Dot highway efficiency.

Talbot, Korvola & Warwick LLP.

The audit will study throughput and congestion on certain high-ways in King, Pierce and Sno-homish counties. The audit will use current and projected use figures to determine capacities and delays on our highway in-frastructure.

oct. 9.Dot administration and overhead. Ernst & Young.

The issue in the audit is DOT’s efficient use of administrative resources. The report will de-termine which programs, facili-ties and staff resources should be consolidated or augmented.

oct. 23.Dot highway maintenance and Construction management. Talbot, Korvola & Warwick LLP.

The performance audit will focus on the effectiveness of inven-tory and supply management, the cost-effectiveness of asphalt procurement, and best practices of maintenance operations. Also covered will be DOT’s tracking of project costs and the overall management of highway projects to minimize delays in completion.

october is shaping up to be a monumental month for Washington transportation policy.

outsourced to a private company, if needed. Current background checks only include in-state convictions so there is a real potential that someone with a criminal record in another state could be credentialed to practice here.

One of the findings also stresses that the compliance process for disciplined practitioners does not ensure that they carry out their sanctions. The audit suggests, among other solutions, that HPQA outsource its compliance monitoring.

Unfortunately, one area the audit fails to address is cost savings, though it is a required element of I-900. The audit dismisses the requirement because the “purpose of [the] performance audit is public safety.” Though public safety enhancement is a primary goal of the audit, this can be accomplished in tandem with cost savings. It is disappointing that the audit failed to quantify or identify opportunities to save taxpayer dollars.

Still, the recommendations identified in this performance audit are a tool for improving the efficiency and overall performance of HPQA. Ultimately, they provide a pathway for improving the health care of our state’s citizens.

But, as EFF President Bob Williams noted in his testimony at the HPQA public hearing, pathways do not always produce results. Secretary Selecky and the Department will be hamstrung until the legislature and governor address the governance structure. The safety of citizens will continue to be jeopardized until the recommendations are implemented.

by Amber Gunn

Legislative action needed to implement Department of Health performance audit recommendations

O

“unfortunately, one area the audit fails to

address is cost savings, though it is a required

element of I-900.”

8 LIVING LIBERTY

by Trent EnglandWhy don’t people care?

Why is it that so many Americans don’t pay at-tention? Why do people not vote? And among

those who do cast a ballot, why do so many never re-ally find out about the candidates or issues?

The first step toward turning disengaged people into active citizens is to find out why they are disengaged in the first place.

When I doorbelled for one of my campaigns, I was shocked to find myself explaining what the state legislature is to registered voters. Such depressing anecdotes, coupled with numerous surveys revealing most Americans’ dearth of knowledge about our own government, are a symptom. The may also be a cause.

It is no secret that the modern American education system is more “system” than “education.” Many Americans have never truly been taught about our government. Instead of learning about federalism, students study how a few racists used “states’ rights” as cover for Jim Crow. Rather than reading our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, civics courses celebrate the Supreme Court and its recent discoveries of new and wonderful “rights.”

Government schools frequently graduate students woefully unprepared to be citizens. A lack of knowledge is a great disadvantage and often a substantial barrier. Knowledge, it is said, is power. The lack of knowledge, then, is the lack of power.

Most people will refuse to waste their time working on something they don’t understand. No one wants to

e normally don’t analyze county-level initia-tives, but Initiative 25 is an exception because

the integrity of King County’s elections affects the en-tire state. One has only to look at the 2004 gubernatorial race to be convinced of that fact.

If passed, the initiative would make two changes to the King County Charter. First, it would create a stand-alone county elections department. Second, it would create a nonpartisan elected position to head that department, titled the Director of Elections. Currently elections are handled by the Records, Elections and Licensing Services division, which is led by a director appointed by the county executive.

After the fiasco of the 2004 election, we felt sure that heads would roll in the elections department. A couple

of heads did roll, but they were lower-level managers, not the people who were really responsible. In fact, the management team still is made up of largely the same people who were there in 2004—a travesty that demonstrates utter disregard for election integrity.

While having an elected director won’t automatically solve this leadership crisis,

it creates the opportunity to make some changes. It takes the election director out from under the thumb of the county executive, and makes him or her directly accountable to the people.

The creation of a stand-alone election department would also be a very good step, preventing the department from being burdened with dog-catching responsibilities during major elections. This same change was made to the King County Sheriff’s Office a few years ago, and it makes sense. Both elections and public safety are core functions of government, and should be independent departments with elected heads. We’ve been calling for this reform since the ’04 election.

So while the changes made by I-25 may not completely solve King County’s election problems, they are a step in the right direction. If passed, they will provide the opportunity for new leadership, and will allow the elections department to operate unhindered by other duties.

integrity of public elections was threatened by the use of money from individuals who had not authorized it to be used for political purposes.

Almost immediately, the Colorado Education Association (CEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Local 858 filed suit to enjoin the rule. CEA claimed that it would cost roughly $4 per member to obtain written authorization before transferring funds to small donor committees, burdening the union and violating members’ free association. Never mind that groups like the Colorado Association of Realtors, also affected by the rule, already get members’ individual sanction through a separate check-off on their electronic and paper dues forms.

Ultimately, though, the Colorado Court of Appeals relied on the union’s complaint as one of two arguments to uphold the injunction of Secretary Dennis’ rule. The judges looked to the U.S. Supreme Court’s established dictum that “dissent is not to be presumed – it must affirmatively be made known to the union by the dissenting employee.” They also cited the Washington Supreme Court’s decision that voided the state’s paycheck protection law as an inconvenient encroachment on the teacher union’s First Amendment rights.

But the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Washington court in Davenport v WEA. The justices unanimously agreed that states can create and enforce higher standards for protecting workers’ free-speech rights than the guaranteed opt-out process. “The constitutional floor for unions’ collection and spending of agency fees is not also a constitutional ceiling for state-imposed restrictions,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia.

Davenport’s recognition of non-union member free-speech rights gives hope to states that also seek to protect the rights of members. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, who defended Secretary Dennis, spearheaded a brief from states’ attorneys general that was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

look foolish. Without a basic understanding of government and its processes, a person is unlikely ever to become an engaged citizen, let alone an effective champion of his rights.

Compounding such failures in education is the ever-expanding size and scope and complexity of government. Even a simple republican government of limited powers may be difficult to understand without some kind of civics education. Today’s monstrous leviathan—libraries of law books, acres of arcane regulations and bureaucrats by the bushel—is nearly incomprehensible even to “insiders.”

As the machinery of government grows and becomes more intricate, many citizens place their trust in “the experts.” That was a primary objective of the early Progressive Movement. Men like Woodrow Wilson wanted to take the ‘politics’ out of politics by handing over control of government to intellectuals, scientists and professionals.

The success of the Progressives laid the foundation for modern bureaucratic

governance. They had little use for the wisdom of the “common man” (once called “common sense”). The Progressive movement asserted that highly educated experts would finally govern in “the public interest” using the “best available science.” This, of course, would eliminate political wrangling and gridlock and better serve the people. Yet government by the bureaucracy has proven to become government of the bureaucracy and for the bureaucracy, as well.

And so we find that the bigger government gets, the more difficult it is to understand and to influence. Big government’s education system produces people even less able to understand government. People end up more reliant on government and thus more supportive of its further enlargement.

At least the solutions, though not easy, are clear.First, we must educate people, enabling them to

become true citizens who demand “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and who recognize that government exists to defend their inherent and inalienable rights. Second, we must reduce the size, scope and cost of government, opening up the freedom necessary for a free society, including a free market, to flourish.

At EFF’s Citizen Action Network (CAN), we are focused on the first of these priorities: returning sovereignty to the people. If you want to join us, become a CAN member at www.effcan.org.

The attorneys general observed that the Supreme Court has given wide latitude to states to establish extra protections of workers’ free speech. They identified a common theme through the Court’s decisions as “an understanding that the constitutional right at issue when unions use workers’ money for political activity is the individual worker’s right not to be coerced into paying for political speech with which he disagrees.”

If the individual worker’s right to be free from coercion is fundamental to his right of free association, then one leg of the Colorado Court of Appeals’ reasoning is taken down.

While Davenport would have helped Dennis clear one major hurdle, a procedural legal barrier prevents her successor from following suit. The Colorado courts determined that the Secretary of State exceeded her rulemaking authority by devising a definition that represented a substantial change to the state’s campaign finance policy.

The legislature has the authority to require member authorizations or to enact other worker protections. A political sea change would be needed first, however, for the Democratic majority officially terminated Dennis’ rule during the 2007 session. Interestingly, more than 99 percent of the $4 million in union contributions to Colorado’s 2006 election backed the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, and pro-Democrat 527 groups.

Since the legislature won’t act, the decision is left directly in the hands of the people. Looking to a ballot initiative, defenders of good government and workers’ free speech can find confidence from the U.S. Supreme Court. After the Davenport decision, they have greater assurance that the judiciary cannot easily undermine another attempt to require organizations to get members’ permission before spending their money on politics. As a result, Colorado can see a clearer path to a genuine “ask first” policy.

Ben DeGrow is an education policy analyst at the Independence Institute

Colorado continued from page 5 . . .

initiative 25: Changing the structure of King

County’s elections division

W

“...the management team still is made up

of largely the same people who were

there in 2004—a travesty that

demonstrates utter disregard for election

integrity.”

“Government schools frequently graduate students woefully unprepared to be citizens. A lack of

knowledge is a great disadvantage and often

a substantial barrier. Knowledge, it is said, is power. the lack of knowledge, then, is the lack of power.”


n emergency strikes and ambulance lights flash. The last thing that we want to worry about is

whether there will be enough money to cover medical expenses.

Yet, healthcare is something we all worry about. With nearly 47 million Americans uninsured it’s clear that something must be done, but what?

Is the solution a government run healthcare industry? Congress currently is contemplating expanding government control in the healthcare industry. However, we must look back on the history of well-intentioned government interventions going bad. In the 1960s, the government regulated the entire airline industry, down to the exact dimensions of sandwiches served to passengers. As a result, competition suffocated and many airlines went bankrupt. Do we want our healthcare system to suffer the same fate as airlines in the 60s?

A variety of competing ideas have been suggested as solutions, with universal healthcare at the top of that list. Canada has already blazed this trail and we can look north to determine whether universal healthcare is a good idea.

We see a situation there that is far more dire than the problem of uninsured people in the U.S. According to the Canadian-based Fraser Institute, which performs extensive research on healthcare, Canadian patients are made to wait for specialist treatment twice as long as they needed to wait prior to the current plan—or double what is considered medically advisable. This results from a shortage of medical staff, technology, and facilities. The Fraser Institute tells us:

“…the Canadian government restricts the supply of health professionals and medical technologies, neglects the modernization of its hospitals, and holds the wages of health professionals as well as the prices for other medical goods and services below market prices.”

When government controls an industry, shortages inevitably result. In the words of economist Milton Friedman, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Governments have neither sufficient information nor adequate speed in order to implement appropriate decisions about an ever-changing market. The Fraser Institute continued, “…it takes central planners and bureaucrats years to realize that shortages exist, let alone make timely decisions to modernize the health-care infrastructure. By contrast, consumer choice and private-sector competition within American healthcare forces hospitals constantly to modernize and invest in new technologies.”

In Cuba, with a similar system, the situation is even worse, with basics such as aspirin and antibiotics in extremely short supply. Even Fidel Castro went to Spain to get his recent medical treatments.

Though our current healthcare system has its problems, it has also brought us incredible medical advances. One of the many risks of public insurance is that we may forego vital advances in technology due to the increased financial burden that would place on taxpayers and diminished incentive to invest in expensive new technologies.

America currently attracts the best physicians from around the world due to our competitive, market–based physicians’ salaries. If we were to move to a universal healthcare plan, that would change quickly.

The healthcare problem in Canada went from a number of people without insurance, to an entire nation unable to get quality care, in a timely fashion. So, they come to the United States for timely care.

Healthcare decisions are best left in the hands of those whom it affects most directly: the patients and their physicians.

Several steps are involved in this solution.A first step in the process would be for employers to

create health savings accounts where employees can set aside money for healthcare. When patients actually spend some of their own money on healthcare, rather than government’s, they tend to seek preventative care and adopt healthier lifestyles.

A second step would be to make the private insurance market more competitive. Instead of relying on the government or employers to provide and stipulate terms of coverage, insurance companies should compete with each other for the business of Americans looking to purchase private insurance. This in turn, creates more options in levels of coverage and care, as well as lower prices. Tom Coburn, U.S. senator and medical doctor, says, “I am convinced that if we had a true consumer-driven health care market today, we would in fact see health care costs 10 percent to 15 percent lower than they are today.”

That number might even be higher in Washington state where the legislature and regulators have driven out many insurance companies, reducing choice and raising medical costs unnecessarily.

Returning to the example of the airline industry; when air travel was deregulated in 1978, profitability improved dramatically and fares dropped by 50 percent over the next 20 years. Air travel was available to millions of people who couldn’t afford it under the regulated system.

As Americans, when we are empowered with freedom of choice, we make better decisions about our welfare. Universal healthcare has shown itself to be potentially dangerous. Americans deserve better. We can maintain quality in healthcare while still caring for the truly needy, through a competitive market, without government intervention.

As P.J. O’Rourke would say, “If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s free!”

by Katie BuccolaFree to Choose: Americans need choice when it comes to healthcare

A

or those of us who worried the newly created “Sunshine Committee” would be just another bor-

ing study group, we couldn’t have been more wrong. In the short two months it has been in existence, the leg-islatively-created committee has become a major side-show. As one open-records advocate noted recently, “When was the last time you saw KING5 News report on a government committee reviewing public records standards?”

The 2007 legislature created the committee by passing Senate Bill 5435, and charged it with reviewing the 300+ exemptions to the Public Records Act that have piled up since the Act was passed by initiative in 1972. The bill itself wasn’t too controversial, since it didn’t actually make any substantive changes, merely establishing a committee to recommend whether exemptions should be kept, changed, or dropped.

The first real hurdle was the appointment of the committee members. Of the thirteen, four are legislators, two are appointed by Attorney General Rob McKenna, one by State Auditor Brian Sonntag, and six by Governor Gregoire. All but the governor’s appointments were made quickly, and none stirred up any dust.

We at EFF closely monitored the make-up of the committee, because we have long been concerned about the plethora of exemptions. In our form of government, citizens are the sovereigns, and while we’ve delegated certain powers to our government, we haven’t delegated the right to know what that government is doing. An ever-increasing list of exemptions is threatening that right. EFF’s past lawsuit over Boeing records is one example of government misusing an exemption to hide an action (giving special favors to a private entity) that we believe the public should be able to see.

Because of this concern we worked with the Washington Coalition for Open Government (a non-partisan open government advocacy group made up of legislators, media and groups like EFF) to write a letter to Governor Gregoire recommending three citizens who we believed would be great additions to the committee – former state representative Toby Nixon, retired newspaper publisher Frank Garred, and Patience Rogge, a past member of several library district boards.

To her credit, Governor Gregoire accepted two of these recommendations, appointing Garred and Rogge to the committee. One of her other appointments, however,

wasn’t so commendable. Tom Carr, attorney for the City of Seattle, was her choice for the committee chair. Seattle (and Carr by extension) is infamous for fighting public records requests, and Carr has represented the city in several cases that have resulted in bad court precedents. Upon hearing the news of his appointment, one newspaper industry lobbyist remarked, “Could the governor have

found a worse chair than Tom Carr? I guess Darth Vader had a schedule conflict.”

By the time the first meeting finally rolled around on August 28, nine papers (including all of Washington’s largest) had editorialized against the Carr appointment. No fights broke out in the first meeting, but the diverse views on the committee were made clear, and it’s certain that as the committee dives into the substantive review of exemptions there will be some very good debates. Future meetings will be held both in Olympia and around the state. Details are available

online at www.sunshinecommittee.com. As a follow-up to the Carr story, Curt Woodward from

the Associated Press asked the governor, the attorney general, and the auditor to give him all public documents related to their Sunshine Committee appointments. Astonishingly, the governor’s office refused, citing a public records exemption! The exemption was written to protect job applications for public employment, so it was quite a stretch to apply it to volunteer appointment documents. After a week of heavy media criticism, the governor reversed her position and decided to provide the documents. While that’s good, the original refusal makes two points that reveal strikingly why the Sunshine Committee is needed: exemptions are often applied too broadly, and public agencies tend to have a default position of non-disclosure.

Both of those things need to change and we can hope the Sunshine Committee will play a big part in highlighting those problems. We’ll be continuing to monitor the committee’s progress, and will let you know how things progress.

by Jonathan Bechtle

Tales of sunshineOpen government committee has bumpy but revealing start

F

“ CoulD the governor have founD a Worse Chair than tom Carr? i guess Darth vaDer haD a sCheDule ConfliCt.”

10 LIVING LIBERTY

by Tom Henry

Random thoughts

I

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation launched a new blog over the Labor Day weekend. We are excited about this new oppor-tunity to communicate more regularly with our members, the media and the general public.

Bob Williams, Lynn Harsh and our policy center directors will comment on daily news events, developments in on-going issues and other matters, as appropriate. The site has been designed to be interactive, so you can post your own com-ments and thoughts.

EFF is blogging!

t seems like every day we are assault-

ed by reports of foster families who can’t be located, children who have been abused and court judgments tak-ing more money out of your pocket. Congratulate DSHS for that. You pay the bill.

Why is it that DSHS doesn’t know where 25% of its foster parents are?

And now that we are on the subject of state supervision, who is looking at the existing supervision of state sexual preda-tors? About 1300 of them are off the ra-dar screen. Preying on your little girls and your little boys. Feeling better yet?

I didn’t think so.

Speaking of sexual predatorsThere are a series of proposals dealing with this issue. You can find them here. http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/DeBolt/newsroom/070921.htm

We don’t support or oppose any of the individual proposals, but we do think the governor and the legislature should give serious consideration to them. The idea behind freedom is that all of us consider good possibilities and potentially good legislation. Good ideas don’t have politi-cal boundaries.

This stuff doesn’t always have to be a partisan issue.

And then we have the per-formance auditsBoth the House and Senate committees concerning the Department of Transporta-tion have deferred public hearing responsibility on performance audits to the

Joint Legislative Audit Review Commit-tee (JLARC). Technically, that is legal.

But why wouldn’t members of the ap-propriate committees be interested in au-dit findings? Are they afraid of what they might find? Are they afraid to take correc-tive action?

Voters approved Initiative 900 in 2005 to bring some accountability to agency performances. It is up to the governor and the legislature to make intelligent deci-sions based on the performance audits and to take corrective action. The voters didn’t approve I-900 in the hopes it would be ig-nored.

But it seems that the legislature is abdi-cating its responsibilities, and these audit reports will just start gathering dust on somebody’s bookshelf. If you can save millions of dollars, it seems you might want to do that.

But, it is always easy to have a law passed and then not enforced. So long as people stop paying attention, it may be a law, but ….

So, finallyKeep up the good fight! Inform your legis-lators of your thoughts on these and other matters! They DO pay attention!

“If you can save millions of dollars, it

seems you might want to do that.”

www. l iber ty l i ve .org


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 $

Use your IRA to champion liberty!

T his is an exclusive message to individuals who are 70 ½ years old, own an Individual Retire-

ment Account (IRA), and want to champion liberty. If this describes you, or someone you know, keep read-ing.

Federal law allows you to withdraw income from your IRA at age 59 ½ and requires you to withdraw from your IRA at age 70 ½. Between the ages of 59 ½ and 70 ½, you can withdraw as little or as much from this account without paying the 10% excise tax. However, this income is added to your regular income and taxed accordingly. When you reach 70 ½ years of age, you are required to take a minimum distribution, which again is added to your regular income and taxed at that rate.

What if you’re 70 ½ or older and don’t need—or want—the income for this year?

President Bush signed a bill into law two years ago that may help you. It’s called the Pension Protection Act of 2006. This bill is noted for making “the most sweeping reform of America’s pension laws in over 30 years,” and it allows you to use your IRA to make your charitable contributions.

However, this is the last year you can direct your IRA distribution to a charitable organization and bypass the addition to your income and tax liability. This Qualified Charitable Deduction—or QCD—provision expires January 1, 2008.

Now is the time to act! The bill allows you to withdraw up to $100,000 as a QCD. The distribution never shows as income to you—because the distribution is made directly to the charitable organization—but serves as your required distribution.

In a 2007 issue of Living Liberty, EFF Trustee Dick Rokes wrote, “When I heard about this new law, I was

excited about the opportunity to take ‘extra’ income from my IRA and donate it to a charitable organization without having to bring it into my taxable income.” Dick turns 70 ½ this year and is taking advantage of this opportunity to defend freedom.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation relies on the private investment of individuals—like you—to continue the battle for personal liberty and responsible government. It is a tough fight that requires your support!

Do you believe in freedom? Of course you do. Are you 70 ½ years old, and own an IRA? Then think about making a QCD to Evergreen Freedom Foundation before the end of the year. You can call Erin George at (360) 956-3482 if you have questions.

Dick has decided to make his financial commitment to EFF through a distribution from his IRA and says, “I urge you to consider doing the same.”

12 LIVING LIBERTY

his workshop is for any EFF member who wants 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 crafted a plan, but it needs a tune-up. Perhaps you turned your estate planning over to someone else to decide, and now you are unsure if you made the best choices.

• Protecting our assets against unnecessary taxes (espe-cially the death tax).

• Ways to involve our loved ones to avoid potential dis-agreements.

• How to consolidate our most important life values and translate those values into our estate planning.

• Choosing the most appropriate tools for our particular situation.

• Where to get help.

Please feel free to bring your attorney or any other pro-fessional you may have already hired or are considering hiring. No services are sold at this workshop. No one will ask you to sign up for anything.

We are very careful about who we recommend in the area of planned giving. We have heard many horror stories. The experts you will be hearing from are well known and highly regarded in their field. Bill Larson and Alan Pratt are Wash-ington state natives with deep roots in their communities. And they love liberty!

Please consIder joInIng us. rsvP to Irene endIcott By octoBer 17

October 23, 2007 Lynwood, WA

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Workshop(Including Lunch)

p l e a s e j o i n u s F O R t h e

P l a n n i n g f o r L i f e

T

Topics that will be addressed include:

Attendance is limited to 50 people.Ample Parking

Irene [email protected]

Bob [email protected]

For more information, contact:

Save the Date!

living liberty october 2007

Documents

private sector

privatesector figures

privatesector wages

privatesector employee

public sector

privatesector workers

private business

average wage