A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

a tale of two washingtons 2 it’s a spending problem 9

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

going to court to raise your taxes 8

Continued on page 6

P

EFF publishes 2008 State of Labor Report

olitics, money and power always make for good intrigue, especially when they involve labor unions.

Our fourth annual State of Labor report, released this month, reviews the inherent costs involved in collec-tive bargaining, the highlights of collective bargaining expansion in key states, and potential solutions for roll-ing back the costly expansions.

During the next four to eight years, the intersection of politics, public opinion and labor unions will be fraught with challenges. Center-left politicians appear poised to elevate themselves to the highest positions of power in our country, thanks in great measure to campaign war chests filled with funds from employee paychecks. Of course, most of those political “donations” are involun-tary, but union leaders expect to see a return on their investment.

A recent piece on FOXNews.com warned that the Employee Free Choice Act, which banishes secret-ballot voting to certify a union, is sure to pass if Sen. Barack Obama is elected president. “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” Obama said. “It’s not a matter of ‘if’; it’s a matter of ‘when.’ We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done.”

Unions have plans to spend at least $360 million on the 2008 election, $200 million more than in the 2004 general election. The Service Employees Interna-tional Union (SEIU) plans to spend $150 million this year and already has committed to making 10 million telephone calls early next year to ensure this legisla-tion passes. The National Education Association and its state affiliates have pledged to help fund and work for the Democratic presidential nominee.

Unions enjoy disproportionate power in lawmaking chambers and in the court of public opinion because of their easy access to money from employees’ paychecks. The best way to prevent this abuse and truly reform labor policy is to end compulsory unionism and ensure a free market in labor representation. In order to reach this goal, people must understand how our states and nation have come to the point of allowing unions and sympathetic politicians to have control.

Expansion of bargaining in Washington stateBefore 2001, most public unions here in Washington consisted of teachers and uniformed personnel, such as police officers and firefighters. Bargaining happened on local, district levels. State workers could unionize, but bargaining was limited to certain workplace conditions. Pay increases for each agency were still controlled by legislators through the budget process.

Two acts opened the doors to massive public-sector unionization. First, in 2001, voters approved Initiative 775, which allowed independent providers of long-term

health care services to form a union and bargain for increased wages, hours and working conditions. This initiative marked the first shift to capture private-sec-tor independent contractors with state contracts and to rename them via legislation as public-sector workers for the purpose of collective bargaining. The indepen-dent providers unionized with SEIU, and dues are now deducted from Medicaid payments from the state gov-ernment to the providers.

On the heels of I-775, the legislature passed HB 1268, the Personnel System Reform Act, in 2002. This law allowed public employees to have more latitude in col-lective bargaining for wages and benefits. Unions now represent state employees across agency lines and nego-tiate labor agreements with the governor’s office. The legislature then votes—without opportunity to amend the agreements—on the funding of each master agree-ment.

Recent bargaining expansions build on the models of I-775 and HB 1268. Efforts in this and other states

by Sonya Jones and Scott Dilley

2 LIVING LIBERTY

34678

9101112

“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 9

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

this issue3 LETTER FROM LYNN THE TICKING SOUND: BACK-TO-SCHOOL TIME

4 READING THE FEDERALIST PART VIII THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 6 STUDENT LEADERS MEET STATE LEADERS

7 EFF’S AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY, FLUNKED, OUT ON DVD THREE GREAT WAYS TO BECOME A MORE INVOLVED CITIZEN

8 GOING TO COURT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES EFF FILES BRIEF IN CASE CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 601 UNION SACRIFICES OWN MEMBERS IN COURT

9 IT’S A SPENDING PROBLEM 10 CEMETERIES ARE GREAT CLASSROOMS CITIZEN POWER

11 COMBINED FUND DRIVES & MATCHING GIFTS

12 JOIN US FOR A PLANNING FOR LIFE WORKSHOP

Publisher:Tom Henry

Editor:Tom Henry

Layout:Joel Sorrell

SEPTEMBER 2008

“You can tell a lot about a fellow’s character by his way of eating jellybeans.”

– Ronald Reagan

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!

This article first appeared August 19th on the blog at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

have had two trips recently that show the geographic differences in perspective on higher education. Last

week, I visited with some folks at the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. where I sensed most people believed that they were important in deciding the pace and pattern of higher education change in Amer-ica. I believe all participants came from East of the Mis-sissippi River. This week, I am on a road show in one of our states—Washington—where higher education is actually conducted. They think THEY will determine the pace and pattern of higher education change, and I think it is at least barely possible they will be right. To

them, Washington D.C. is a place 3,000 miles away that is largely irrelevant but meddlesome in determining the conduct of their schools.

The good folks at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation have me speaking with legislators, civic interests, etc., about the future of Washington higher education, occa-sioned by a report Andy Gillen and I did on the topic. Washington, for all its high level eminence in high tech-nology, has some fairly good, but not world class, uni-versities where costs have been rising significantly in recent years. Only one school in the state made the top 100 on our new rankings with Forbes.com, namely little Whitman College.

The head of the Higher Education Committee in the House, Deb Wallace, seems moderately reformist, will-

ing to think of a scholarship approach that involves mov-ing funding from institutions to students. She is a hawk on easing the transfer of credit from one institution to another, an issue fraught with some peril but nonethe-less worth exploring.

A huge problem in Washington is the opposition of reactionary labor unions to any and all meaningful change—even in higher education, where they repre-sent many workers. That type of opposition probably is keeping Washington from having truly first rate schools. The University of Washington, typical of flagship state schools, is relentlessly pushing graduate education and research—but has undergraduates sitting in classes in

by Richard VedderA tale of two Washingtons

I

Continued on next page

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LY NNby Lynn Harsh

the ticking sound: back-to-school time

O n several occasions, I have been asked to publish a memo I sent to a handful of education reform-

ers around the country last year. It was written for in-ternal use only, but I’ve been convinced that, with dele-tions related to specific strategies, it would be useful to a broader audience. I have deleted some specifics since it is rarely wise to announce battle strategy in advance.

The memo contains nothing in the way of news to regular readers of Living Liberty. But perhaps it helps connect the dots and craft a solution.

I will preface the memo with this: Few people have any idea how difficult it is to be a great teacher or a great student today. Students always have required some level of customized education, but the need has accelerated in recent decades. Yet we persist in protecting a standard-ized, outdated education model that serves few children and their teachers well.

Furthermore, society has asked schools to take on many responsibilities outside the academic realm, and most parents have walked away from their responsibility to teach their children to self-govern and accept appropriate responsibility for actions and attitudes.

Elected officials have provided resources to build institutional castles, so to speak, and then they paid for statutory moats around each to keep invaders out. So, who really knows what’s going on behind those decaying walls!

Well, we know that the young people housed behind those walls are not receiving appropriate educations; that excellent teach-ers and principals are frustrated; that we are falling behind our global economic competitors. All the while, the castle gate-keepers tell us things are okay and that they would be great if elected officials would appropriate more money to fix the walls. And elected officials comply.

And our kids feel just fine about themselves. And our global competitors lick their chops. It is well past time that we do something about it.

Memo: Education union bosses will die on this hillIt’s a fact: We can keep our sovereign country and free society only if American citizens are well educated and self governed. But our citizenry can be neither well ed-ucated nor self governed when we are schooling our-selves and our children at union-run, government-pro-tected, monopoly institutions.

Incentives in this type of system always protect the institution itself over producers and consumers. In these institutions, independence, personal responsibility and excellence—the lynchpins of a free society—are not re-warded; in fact, they are smashed.

Power must be transferred from the people who run this dangerous monopoly, well-intentioned though some of them may be, to consumers (parents and students) and producers (teachers, principals, sometimes parents, sometimes businesses.)

Unions run our education institutions currently, and their understandable incentive is power. They have

this power only because lawmakers protect them statutorily. Lawmak-ers have incentive to do this because unions pro-vide the mother’s milk of politics—money and prestige. We must “fire” the people who protect this monopoly. In other words, we should refuse to elect or re-elect public officials who either lack the vision or the courage to forge true education reform.

Education union lead-ers have lots of money to line political war chests because they have direct access to teachers’ pay-

checks. Teachers have incentive to allow this because they fear the financial outcomes of going it on their own—of not having a union to watch out for their inter-ests, including health care and protection against law-suits. Most teachers feel unprepared to wade into the nitty-gritty of contract negotiations.

As a result, education union bosses will have more than one billion dollars in 2008 to spend on hard-core politics to widen the moat between their kingdom and any potential competitors.

But we know from what happened in three states (Utah, WA and CO) when the teacher union bosses are forced to live off voluntary funds alone, the union becomes a mere sliver of itself. Union survival in edu-cation depends on its ability to coerce employees and remain secretive about how its leaders spend members’ money.

The fastest way to change incentives and outcomes in education is to cut off the involuntary source of teacher union funds. In most states, the best method to do this is to insist that unions are transparent with members re-garding how union dues are spent. The drive for trans-parency should operate in tandem with a persuasive, winsome campaign for personalized education alterna-tives for children.

After all, this is what our children need to succeed in terms of their education.

Success for would-be education reformers means power must be shifted away from the education-related unions. But union bosses will die on this hill, and few education reformers are willing to accept this reality and plan accordingly. They shrink knowing that the union’s bullying tactics will exact a cost to their reputations and time. I don’t want those folks in my foxhole.

We must develop a battle strategy that eventually re-moves rather than restrains the powerful barriers in ed-ucation that prevent parents and students from choosing the best education providers possible. This is also the key to recruiting and retaining the best teachers. While this may have to be done in several steps, those steps should be wisely chosen.

We are in an ideological war, though some people and organizations apparently do not concur, as evidenced by the way we reformers too often waste time, money and political capital. We have all learned hard lessons along the way. When union bosses have political and public relations warchests full of billions of involuntary member funds, we who love children and freedom are operating on marginal terrain. No war can be won by us on such terrain. We need to change the terrain to our advantage.

Let us dare to be wise and determine to be victorious.

the triple digits even in the senior year, often taught by graduate students with limited English comprehension. No wonder that institution ranked only fourth in the state in the Forbes rankings—below Whitman, Whit-worth and the University of Puget Sound, schools where undergraduate teaching is taken seriously, not merely an inconvenience needed to secure state funding.

I talked to some of my friends from Oregon like Bill Connerly and Steve Buckstein and learned the situation is similar there. Special interests, including university administrations themselves, block meaningful reform—even full disclosure of information of what is going on—what are the kids learning? How are staff and physical plant being deployed? How are resources being used? In Washington, the state auditor wants to learn more about what is going on in the colleges fiscally, and that

is good. But on the whole, American higher education is on a collision course with realty and, when it comes, it will not be pretty.

Dr. Richard Vedder is a distinguished professor of economics at Ohio University. He recently completed “Higher Education in Washington: An External Assess-ment” for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

Two Washingtons continued from page 2 . . .

“SucceSS for would-be education reformerS meanS power muSt be Shifted away from the education-related

unionS. but union boSSeS will die on thiS hill, and few education reformerS

are willing to accept thiS reality and plan

accordingly.”

4 LIVING LIBERTY

Part VIII:

The FederalistReading

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

This essay is the seventh 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

ThE houSE of REPRESEnTaTivES

he first United States House of Rep-resentatives convened on Wednes-

day, March 4, 1789, in New York City. Too few members had arrived and they adjourned for lack of a quorum. The same thing happened the next day and the next, even as a more representatives gradually arrived. James Madison reached New York on March 14. It was not until April 1—four weeks after that first attempt—that the House reached a quorum and was able to proceed.

They met at 26 Wall Street, New York’s Old City Hall. The building was a symbol of American self government and continuity. Originally constructed in 1700 as New York City Hall, delegates from nine states had met there as the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 to protest taxation with-out representation. The Articles of Confederation Congress had used the Hall from January 13, 1785 until March 2, 1789, two days before the new Con-gress began to assemble.

The building also was an emblem of American creativity and achievement. In 1788, while the people remodeled

their national government, Peter Charles L’Enfant had remodeled the Old City Hall in the new, “federal” architectural style. The building was renamed Federal Hall.

The Chief Justice of the State of New York administered the first oath of office to members of the House of Represen-tatives in Federal Hall on Wednesday, March 8, 1789. Among the 34 members present were six men who had signed the Constitution: George Clymer, Daniel

Carroll, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, James

Madison and Roger Sherman.

As one of the most influential members of the Constitutional Convention, Madi-son had played an important part in cre-

ating the institution in which he came to serve.

As one of the authors, with Alexander Hamilton and John

Jay, of the 85 essays known as The Fed-eralist, Madison formulated many of the arguments favoring the Constitution. In essays 52 through 58 he defended the House of Representatives, arguing that it would remain appropriately representa-tive of, and responsible to, the people.

Congress was the only branch of gov-ernment not new to the United States. While individual states had governors and judges, together they had relied on a legislative body—some form of the Con-tinental Congress—to manage all federal affairs. Yet the Constitution’s Congress, aside from possessing the legislative power, was far different from its prede-cessors. The most obvious variance was its division into two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Anti-Federalists expressed fewer concerns about the House of Represen-tatives than the Senate, yet no aspect of the proposed government was free from criticism. Both Madison and Hamilton wrote in the Federalist to explain and defend “that branch of the federal gov-ernment which ought to be dependent on the people alone.”

Federalist Nos. 52–53: Qualifications and two-year terms (Madison)Federalist essays 52 through 83 discuss the particular institutions proposed in the Constitution—the House of Representa-tives, Senate, Executive and Judiciary. This is the same progression as in the Constitution itself, proceeding from the branch of government most connected to the people to the branch most inde-pendent. That connection between the American people and the House of Rep-resentatives is the topic of Federalist 52 and 53.

The first question was who may vote for these Representatives. The Consti-tution defers to the states, but in a par-ticular way. Whomever a state permits to vote for “the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature” must be allowed to vote for members of the U.S. House. This should be “comfortable” to the states, since it incorporates their own preexist-ing rules, and is also “safe to the United States” because these rules are found in state constitutions and are thus not easily manipulated.

Publius (the pen name for all of the Federalist essays) touches briefly on the qualifications for office. A representative must be at least 25 years old, a citizen for at least seven years, the inhabitant of the state where he is elected and serving

in no other federal office. “Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” Publius might also have added that here, as in the balance of the Constitu-tion, there is no limitation or distinction made according to race or sex.

The end of essay 52 and all of 53 defend the Constitution’s provision for two-year terms for Representatives. The House, writes Publius, “should have an immedi-ate dependence on, and an intimate sym-pathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.” Because experi-ence is “the guide that ought always to be followed whenever it can be found,” Pub-lius considers three historical analogies.

Two of these examples, the British House of Commons and the Parliament of Ireland, had originally relied on the King to call for elections. British reforms had required elections every three years and then every seven years. A recent change in Ireland had fixed the term at eight years. Looking to American colo-nial governments, Publius notes legisla-tive terms varied from one year to seven. All these examples are offered as “a very substantial proof that the liberties of the people can be in no danger from biennial elections.”

Federalist 53 responds to the Anti-Federalist sentiment “that where annual elections end, tyranny begins.” Publius concedes that “sayings which become proverbial are generally founded in reason,” but instantly turns the tables, asserting that such proverbs are likewise often misapplied. As to annual elections, Publius points out that there is no “natu-ral connection … between the sun or the seasons, and the period within which human virtue can bear the temptations of power.” In other words, no one actu-ally contends that annual elections are a decree of the natural law. Rather, appro-priate terms for public service lie “within extremes, which afford sufficient latitude for all the variations and circumstances of civil society.”

Perhaps, writes Publius, we might pre-fer to elect some officers “daily, weekly, or monthly.” Turning to the comparable branches of state legislatures, Publius finds Connecticut and Rhode Island

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

electing legislators to six-month terms. Ten states hold annual elections; South Carolina every two years. Yet this “four to one” difference does not appear to produce any benefits in Connecticut and Rhode Island or a risk to liberty in South Carolina.

Publius traces the idea that annual elec-tions are essential for liberty to nations without firm constitutions. Where legis-latures can alter the system of govern-ment, annual elections may be a critical safeguard.

But what necessity can there be of applying this expedient to a government limited … by the authority of a paramount Constitu-tion? Or who will pretend that the liberties of the people of America will not be more secure under biennial elections, unalterably fixed by such a Constitution, than those of any other nation would be, where elections were annual, or even more frequent, but subject to alterations by the ordinary power of the government?

Finding two-year terms safe, Publius inquires whether they are “necessary or useful.” A “competent legislator” must have not only “upright intention and a sound judgment,” but also “knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate.” Only so much can be learned from books or other people, some of this knowledge can only be the result of personal experi-ence. The vastness of the United States and the intricacies of foreign policy will make the job of a federal legislator more complex than that of their state govern-ment counterparts. The two-year terms will also empower new House members against those few who will serve repeated terms, strengthen the House relative to the Senate, and permit the House to investi-gate claims of fraudulent elections before the questionable member has served his full term.

Federalist No. 54: Slavery and appor-tionment (Madison)The only extended discussion of slav-ery in The Federalist is in No. 54’s dis-cussion of congressional apportionment and defense of the three-fifths clause. The Constitution’s provision for count-ing slaves as three-fifths of a person was a compromise between Southerners, who wanted slaves fully counted, and North-erners, who did not want slaves counted at all. The relative power of the states in the House of Representatives was at issue; the three-fifths clause was the compromise.

Publius writes most of the essay as the possible statement of “one of our South-ern brethren.” This Southerner describes the dual status of slaves—as property, subject to “the capricious will of another,” and as persons, held responsible by law for their acts. Yet the status of prop-erty comes only from the pretext of the law; repeal the laws of slavery and “the Negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with other inhabitants.” Free black persons were to be counted as whole persons.

Federalist Nos. 55–58: How many rep-resentatives? (Madison)If all thirteen states ratified the Constitu-tion, it provided for a total of 65 members of the House of Representatives. This number and its proportion to the general

population were, according to opponents of the Constitution, too few to protect lib-erty and too small for a truly represen-tative body. Publius points out that, here again, no absolute rule prevails and the state governments offer a great diversity of examples. The answer, Publius sug-gests, is to understand the principles at work.

Just because “sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven” does not mean that “six or seven hun-dred would be proportionably … bet-ter.” Six or seven thousand would be too many. There must be enough members for meaningful debate and to reduce the risk of conspiracies, yet not so many as to result in “the confusion and intemper-ance of a multitude”.

In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

Publius predicts that membership in the House will grow within fifty years to about four hundred. He might expect that it will stay at about that number, since the Constitution only requires that each member alone represent at least 30 thou-sand persons. He appears to believe that something around four hundred is the ideal number. Until the House grows that large, Publius offers “the present genius of the people of America,” as an added protection against corruption and con-spiracy. Publius concludes No. 55 with a reflection on human nature.

As there is a degree of deprav-ity in mankind … so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republi-can government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the infer-ence would be that there is not suf-ficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

In No. 56, Publius responds to the charge that the Constitution provides for too few House members to represent effectively the diversity among the American states. This might be true if Congress possessed full legislative power, writes Publius. Yet Congress’s power is limited to particular federal issues. The number of represen-tatives will be sufficient to represent the interests on these limited matters. The representatives also will have the benefit of learning from state and local govern-ments, particularly on matters of com-merce and taxation.

The title given No. 57 is “The alleged tendency of the new plan to elevate the few at the expense of the many consid-ered in connection with representation.” The principle behind this charge, Pub-lius believes, “strikes at the very root of republican government.”

The aim of every political con-stitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who pos-sess most wisdom to discern, and

most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them vir-tuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

Election by the people ought to bring forth mostly honorable men who will be bound to the people by “duty, gratitude, interest, [and] ambition.” These are all the tools available within the Republican system, the same devices found in state constitutions. Publius points out that some state legislators already represent more people than will House members at the commencement of the new federal Constitution.

Another Anti-Federalist charge, answered in No. 58, suggested that the number of representatives would simply not be increased. Either a cabal in the House or simply the interests in the Sen-ate would freeze the body at 65 members and not permit it to grow with the general population.

The first of Publius’s three points against this contention is another com-parison with the state governments. Some of these lack any provision controlling an increase in their legislatures and others are similar to the Constitution. Second, writes Publius, even for the lack of some particular formula, the state legislatures have kept pace with population growth. Third, at least some Senators—those representing large or rapidly growing states—will have an interest in increas-ing and reapportioning the membership of the House.

The closing paragraph of No. 58 defends setting one-half the representatives as the quorum necessary for the House to operate. Anti-Federalists believed more members should be necessary for a quo-rum. Publius acknowledges the allure of this position, that it might offer another check against the abuse of power. Yet any

increase is at the same time an increase in the risk of paralyzing the body for lack of sufficient attendance—a frequent fate of Congress under the Articles of Con-federation.

Federalist No. 59–61: Elections (Ham-ilton)The Constitution assigns primary respon-sibility for regulating federal elections to state governments, but also allows that “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” This reserva-tion, writes Publius in No. 59, protects for Congress “the means of its own pres-ervation.” Leaving the power entirely with the states would have left Congress vulnerable to interference or conspiracy from the state governments.

The charge answered in No. 60 is that Congress might regulate the elections with a bias in favor of certain citizens and against others. Publius rebuts that the House, Senate and President—each elected differently—would be unlikely to find their electoral predilections aligned. Regulating elections to favor a particu-lar class also would be difficult, if not impossible, because of America’s highly integrated society.

The discussion of congressional elec-tions ends in No. 61. Critics suggested that the Constitution should have made allowance for voters to vote within their own counties and fixed a time for the election. Publius grants that such altera-tions might do no harm, but points out that New York’s own state constitution lacks such detailed provisions.

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

6 LIVING LIBERTY

s part of EFF’s Student Leadership Program, we arranged meetings for our summer interns

with two state-wide elected officials. In July, our in-terns had lunch with State Auditor Brian Sonntag. Over sandwiches, they learned about the role of the Auditor in state government. Sonntag shared some of his personal views about open government as well as the joys and difficulties of working as a public servant. He also recalled the path that he took to arrive at the position he is in today, and dispensed some of the wisdom he gained along the way.

In early August, EFF’s interns met Attorney General Rob McKenna at his Seattle office. They didn’t just enjoy the panoramic view from his office, but got an inside view from the state’s top law enforcement official. General McKenna manages the largest law firm in Washington and shared his own ideas about how to use all that legal firepower to protect citizens.

Thanks again to Auditor Sonntag and General McKenna for taking time to meet and talk with these student leaders. We were pleased the Washington Policy Center’s interns could join us as well.

If you know a student who might be interested in becoming an EFF intern next summer, keep watching Living Liberty or effwa.org for more information this fall.

AStudent leaders meet state leaders

to unionize day-care providers, in-home health-care workers, and foster parents use the rationale that reim-bursements, stipends and other payments from the state provide enough justification for private-sector workers to be unionized as public workers. These private busi-nesses and their workers are being forced to join a union and pay dues for “representation” they may not want, or necessarily agree is a good idea.

By allowing these industries to have access to the bar-gaining table, private-sector workers are turning into de facto state employees, potentially costing Washington and other states billions of dollars. In addition, these expansions allow money from public sources to be fun-neled as dues to union middlemen, who then turn around and ask the public for more money. If legislators are intent on continuing social-service programs, they should use their oversight powers to remedy inefficiencies. Allow-ing unions to have the political and financial muscle to force the changes squanders public money and trust.

To help document the influence of money, politics and unions, we examined campaign contributions and voting on bills to expand collective bargaining during the past four years. In total, the public-sector unions we exam-ined spent a total of $1,128,425 on direct campaign con-tributions between 2004 and July 2008. These unions gave 81-82 percent of their campaign contributions to Democrat candidates. These figures do not include “soft money” given to political party committees or spent on independent expenditures.

The total votes of legislators for the bills we tracked were 1026 in favor and 215 against. A breakdown of these votes by party indicates Democrats voted “yea” 747 times and “nay” just 17 times. Republicans were more evenly divided, casting 279 votes in favor and 198 votes against.

When placed alongside press accounts of state budget and workforce increases during the past four years, we see a more complete picture of current state employ-ment. In a July article, Seattle Times reporter Andrew Garber wrote that the number of state jobs has increased

by 6,100, funded by part of $8 billion in increased state spending.

The political funding and legislator voting trends will likely continue given the successes public-sector unions have seen with Democrats in control of the legislature and governor’s mansion. If the 2008 elections result in a partisan breakdown similar to the current legislative and executive scenario, unions will likely continue to enjoy the expansion of public-sector bargaining.

Other topics coveredThe hidden costs of collective bargaining often go unno-ticed. Contributing writer Phil Maymin of the Yankee Institute in Connecticut debunks the rationale behind three common justifications for public-sector collective bargaining. Maymin explains that providing economic stimulus by overpaying unionized government employ-ees is not an effective use of public resources. Moreover, public union labor agreements include hidden costs to government and society. Finally, elevated union wages lead workers to believe their labor is worth more than it truly is on the free market, forcing government to pay more in wages for less in services.

The State of Labor documents the process of estab-lishing collective bargaining in Colorado. Ben DeGrow of the Independence Institute in Colorado writes about Gov. Bill Ritter’s executive order to recognize public-worker labor “partnerships,” similar to unions. Advo-cates for worker freedom responded to Ritter’s actions by placing a right-to-work amendment on the fall ballot. This measure would protect workers from having to pay for union services in order to keep their jobs. DeGrow concludes: “With the Democratic National Convention on Colorado’s center stage, the political stakes over the business-labor showdown have been raised consider-ably. Regardless of the outcome of this year’s ballot wars, labor relations in Colorado will change dramati-cally.”

Possible reformsEvery worker in America wants more money, better ben-efits and job security. However, there is a big difference

between what workers want, what they need, and what their employer can afford. The money has to come from somewhere, and taxpayers foot the bill for increased pay and benefits for government workers.

The State of Labor report suggests four actions leg-islators can take to curb the influence and expense of public-sector unions.

First, collective bargaining negotiations should be open to public observation. The public has a right to know what is happening at public meetings on public time regarding public dollars. This is especially true when public officials are negotiating contracts with unions from which they also receive campaign contribu-tions. Any appearance of wrongdoing taints the image of elected officials and union representatives. Open-ing negotiations helps ensure that politics and contract negotiations are kept separate from each other.

Second, states should enact laws requiring public-sector unions to disclose financial information. Private-sector unions already must disclose similar information to the federal government. State workers and the pub-lic should have access to union financial dealings that affect us all.

Third, legislators should enact or strengthen paycheck protection efforts that restrict unions from spending dues money for political purposes without prior, affir-mative authorization from workers.

Finally, strikes by public employees should be illegal, with stiff penalties for breaking the law.

Taxpayers need to start questioning the financial stran-glehold the collective bargaining process has on public budgets. As governments cave to the high demands of Big Labor, there is less money available for states to operate, maintain current projects and fix or repair fail-ing infrastructure. Since many of these options are cur-rently not available to taxpayers, the only public influ-ence is through registering approval or disapproval of such policies at the ballot box.

If you would like a copy of the 2008 State of Labor report, send your name and mailing address to Scott Dilley at sdilley@effwa.org, or view the report online at www.effwa.org.

State of Labor continued from page 1 . . .

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

First Principles of Freedom

This course is designed to educate you on where the idea of freedom came from and its place in our country’s founding. The curriculum covers

Bastiat’s The Law, a study on the Declaration of Independence, and analysis of

several Federalist Papers. We offer this course in 2 hour segments, for up to 6 hours, with each segment covering one of the topics listed below:

The Argument for LibertyFew writers have so clearly and concisely presented the argument for liberty as Fred-eric Bastiat. This class examines and con-siders these arguments as presented in Bas-tiat’s famous little book, The Law.

The Declaration of Independence and its CriticsWhat does the Declaration really say, why does it matter and how has it been used, abused and attacked since 1776?

Federalism: A nation of statesThe United States was established as a “compound republic,” which offered the people a “double security” for their rights. How was this sys-tem really supposed to work and, well, what happened to it?

Power: Checks and BalancesHow was the original Constitution designed to re-strain power and protect rights and how has the original design been changed to undermine these checks and balances?

Persuasive Writing Workshop

The ability to make your case effectively and gracefully is essential to any kind of involvement as a vocal leader in

your community. Our representatives in government and our fellow citizens need to hear

clear, concise arguments for the cause of freedom in order for them to understand its importance and change their behavior. This course will equip you with the tools you need to become an effective communicator and make your thoughts heard.

Film Screenings

Documentaries are a great way for citizens to educate themselves and others in their community about the important issues going on around them. EFF hosts showings of two great documentaries in order to generate

awareness and promote action on the topics of education reform and the free market:

1. The Call of the EntrepreneurThis film shows the success stories of three different entrepreneurs working on three very diverse levels of the economy, using the free market philosophy. 2. FlunkedThis is EFF’s own production, showcasing the suc-cess stories of free-market ideals when they are placed into ailing school systems by several brave teachers.

If you would like to reserve a spot in an advertised class or request a location for EFF to conduct one, please send an email to Lasse Lund at CAN@effwa.org.

Available NOW!WITH MORE THAN ONE HOUR OF SpEcIAL FEATURES

$24.99

WiNNERBEST Ed UCATiONAL dOCUmENTARy

BAyOU CiTyiNSPiRATiONAL fiLm

fESTivAL

2008

Now you can own EFF’s award winning docu-mentary, Flunked, which examines the state of American public education to find both a story of failure and a formula for hope.

See what everyone is talking about....

For more information on purchasing Flunked for you, your family and your friends, log onto flunkedthemovie.com or contact Lauren Zammit at lzammit@effwa.org.

+ Tax (WA)WWW.fLUNKEdTHEmOviE.COm

3 GREAT WAySEFF’s Citizens Action Network (CAN)

TO BECOmE A mORE iNvOLvEd CiTizENOffERiNG

FREE SHIppING

8 LIVING LIBERTY

he Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) extols its own virtues on its website. It

envisions “build[ing] public support and trust,” seeks to “ensure the union is a positive force in workers’ lives, families and communities,” and protects “diversity in ideas, behavior and differences.”

Yet when diverse ideas come in contact with the union’s financial interests, the union’s stated values seem less important. WFSE now is working against state workers by refusing to fight for their interests and by filing law-suits against other state employees.

WFSE boasts nearly 40,000 members across state agencies, such as the Departments of Social and Health Services, Labor and Industries, Ecology, and Transpor-tation. WFSE also represents certain higher-education employees at the University of Washington, Central Washington University, Eastern Washington Univer-sity, Washington State University and numerous com-munity colleges.

Damage ControlIn 2007, WFSE filed a lawsuit against the state alleging that overtime pay rates for Department of Transporta-tion workers were incorrect. WFSE wanted the state to fix the problems as far back as June 2005. But a state audit of payroll also revealed that some DOT employ-ees were overpaid and would have to return funds to the state.

In recent meeting minutes from the WFSE Transpor-tation Policy Committee, the union revised its position: “Members agreed paying the state back when members

are not getting paid enough, could affect the union’s credibility especially for those members not knowing about the lawsuit and that this affects other agencies.”

The union justified its soft-shoe approach to the pay-roll issue because the timing of its actions “involved contractual negotiations and other considerations.”

So, an adverse judgment or finding could make the union look bad in the eyes of members who didn’t know about the union’s lawsuit in the first place. Now all the union wants is for the state to fix the overtime pay rates in the future. Instead of fighting for its members, WFSE kept them in the dark due to possible bad public relations and height-ened challenges during contract negotiations. We’re sure state workers love a union that dumps them when the chips are down. And, speaking of that…

The WFSE 1900In July, we uncovered minutes from a meeting of the WFSE Local 1400 where it was revealed that the union was preparing to sue up to 1900 state employees for unpaid back dues or shop fees. EFF broke the story to Adam Wilson at The Olympian.

According to a story in The Olympian on July 25, 2008, “The union asked the state to fire workers for not paying dues in 2006, turning in a list of 779 potential candi-dates. Just six workers were terminated before a lawsuit and public protest by the workers prompted the union to drop its demands.” Tim Welch, the WFSE spokesman, said, “The lawsuits are a better way to enforce the con-tract rules.”

battle is shaping up in Olympia, where a state lawmaker is going to court to make it easier

to raise taxes. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) is asking the Washington Supreme Court to invalidate a law that could stand in the way of tax increases in 2009.

In August the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and several other organizations filed a “friend of the court” brief opposing Senator Brown’s effort.

With the weakening economy, Washington state is facing a $2.7 billion deficit, and this news is unlikely to improve before the legislative session opens in January 2009. In order to close the gap, lawmakers must either drastically cut spending, or find new revenue. If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t bet on the spending cuts.

But if the legislature wants to raise taxes, it faces a hurdle: new taxes or fees must be approved by two-thirds of the members of each house. This two-thirds vote requirement has long served as a moderating influence in the legislature. The mechanism was part of Initiative 601, which was approved by the voters in 1993.

Enter Senator Lisa Brown.During the 2008 legislative session, Senator Brown

proposed a new liquor tax that would have raised $10 million. The bill passed with a simple majority, but failed to get the two-thirds vote needed. Sen. Brown asked Lt. Governor Brad Owen, who acts as the presi-dent of the Senate, to rule the two-thirds requirement unconstitutional.

“A two-thirds requirement to pass certain types of bills, in my opinion, is antidemocratic and violates the

Washington constitution,” Brown said. While expressing agreement with Brown, Lt. Gov. Owen ruled that the question is one for the courts to address. This happened on a Fri-day.

Sen. Brown went to court the next Monday, asking the Supreme Court to order the Lt. Gov. to pronounce the bill passed. In order to accomplish this, she asked the court to invali-date the two-thirds requirement. Sen. Brown argues the supermajority vote requirement is unconstitutional under Article II, Section 22 of the Washington Con-stitution. The provision states: “No bill shall become a law unless...a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.” Brown says that the two-thirds requirement sets a high threshold not authorized by the constitution.

The Office of the Attorney General, defending the constitutionality of the law, points out that the language prohibits bills from passing with less than a major-ity, but does not forestall the possibility of additional

by Michael Reitz

Going to court to raise your taxesEFF files brief in case challenging Initiative 601

A

supermajority requirements. Obviously, a bill that receives a two-thirds vote also has received a simple majority vote and thereby satisfies the constitution’s minimal threshold requirements.

The attorney general also points out that if the legis-lature doesn’t like the two-thirds requirement, it could simply repeal the law with a simple majority. But that action could have negative political consequences. Instead, Senator Brown is asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional.

EFF filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the two-thirds requirement. In the brief we discussed the text of the constitutional provision (Art. II, Sec. 22), and argue that a two-thirds requirement is entirely con-sistent. During the constitutional debates, the delegates were concerned about bills passing with a majority of those merely present, so they required a majority of the full chamber. This doesn’t prohibit the state from requiring a higher level of approval for tax increases. In fact, from the state’s earliest days, Washingtonians have sought to safeguard their pocketbooks from legis-lative invasions. The state’s founders were very suspi-cious of the legislature—one delegate, in fact, called it a “great enemy.” A two-thirds requirement for taxes is in line with this sentiment.

Since the adoption of I-601, the legislature has re-enacted the law, temporarily suspended it and modified it in several amendments. But the basic requirement for supermajority approval of tax increases has remained in place. In fact, since 2000, the legislature has passed five bills that left the requirement intact. Ironically, Sen. Brown voted for each of these five bills.

We were happy to have several other organizations join our brief: Washington State Farm Bureau, Ameri-cans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union and the NFIB Small Business Legal Center.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Septem-ber 9.

by Sonya Jones and Scott DilleyUnion sacrifices own members in court

T Underlying all of these claims is a last-minute security clause that binds state employees to paying representa-tion fees, in lieu of membership dues, in order to keep their jobs. However, subsection D of the union secu-rity clause doesn’t grant WFSE the authority to collect unpaid dues/fees from employees. The union’s only con-tractual recourse is to (1) notify the employer that the employee has not paid and, (2) inform the employee that he/she may be terminated. An employee risks possible— not mandatory—termination by the state, not the union. So far, WFSE has filed suit against 35 state employees in Spokane County, 12 in Lewis County, 29 in Clark County, 128 in Thurston County, and 161 in King County.

Among those being sued in Lewis County includes a man who was a willing, dues-paying member of WFSE. That is, until now.

Sometime in 2005, the state recognized that this employee’s duties were above those of his classification and promoted him to a position that reflected his actual work. Much to WFSE’s dismay, the new classification was no longer in the bargaining unit so the state’s reclas-sification reduced WFSE’s membership by five people. After 16 months of haggling and claims by WFSE that the state was skimming from its membership, all five employees were reclassified back into the bargaining unit even though their duties remained unchanged. That’s right: same job, less pay.

This employee actually paid dues for a time while clas-sified outside of the bargaining unit and then stopped.

Continued on next page

“In fact, from the state’s earliest days, Washingtonians have sought

to safeguard their pocketbooks from legislative invasions.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

once knew a boy who was drafted to play pro-fessional baseball straight out of high school. He

received a hefty, six-figure bonus for his talent.As any responsible teenage boy would, he tucked it

away in the most solid investment he could think of—a brand new Dodge pick-up truck.

Not wanting all of his chickens in one roost, he sought to diversify his portfolio; hence came the purchase of a new four-wheeler, a few fishing trips, enough hunting, fishing and scuba gear to fill a state-owned warehouse and, of course, lots of nice gifts for his girlfriend.

The law of diminishing returns is setting in, so I’ll cut this story short and get to the point. After one or two vehicle trade-ins, an engagement ring and one six-week European vacation, he was broke. Not just broke, but in debt.

Like my friend, state governments also are going broke. And they’ve shown about the same level of finan-cial discipline. Even though the economy has prospered the last few years and government coffers have over-flowed, government spending has outpaced revenue growth three to one.

State and local governments will spend more than $2 trillion for the first time in 2008, and new employees and higher compensation are a primary cause of higher spending.

This inexcusable spending binge has brought us where we are today: more than 30 states are currently in a deficit and nearly all remaining states are expecting deficits for the next budget, including Washington.

Despite all the bad news, second quarter spending in 2008 jumped 7.8% compared to 2007, while revenue rose just 2.5% in the same period.

Not convinced this isn’t a revenue problem? Let’s take a closer look at the numbers. This is where I usually lose people, so I’ll try to keep it sprightly.

State and local tax revenues have grown 41.4% since 2002—from $926 billion in FY2002 to more than $1.3 trillion in FY2007.

Though the growth of state and local taxes is projected to slow over the next year, Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, points out that recent tax revenue trends show that most states are fac-ing deficits due to overspending, rather than weakening revenues.

“Government revenue growth has slowed from the large increases of recent years, but that is hardly a fiscal crisis. Indeed, it indicates a needed respite for overbur-dened state and local taxpayers,” he said.

He points to the “curious way” many newspapers have reported on state budget issues, “devoid of hard facts about actual dollars spent by the states” and treat-ing any needed spending restraint as a crisis.

by Amber GunnIt’s a spending problem

I Rather than relying on journalists to draw value-laden conclusions about the current state of affairs, I asked the experts.

Economist Arthur B. Laffer and senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore, ana-lyzed budget and spending growth trends for all states over the last few decades and found overspending by states during high-growth economic periods is a pre-dictable and verifiable trend. Oh, snap!

In their 2007 publication Rich States, Poor States, the authors wrote, “States often find themselves in fis-cal trouble because they spend far too much during economic expansions. They are like the scorpion that is carried on the back of the frog across the river that then stings the frog causing them both to drown…It seems that overspend-ing when the coffers are flush is in the nature of state legislatures.”

To back that, the National Associa-tion of State Budget Officers reported that state general fund spending increased 6.5% in 2005, 8.7% in 2006, 9.3% in 2007, and 5.1% in 2008. Com-pared to revenue growth during the same period, this is highway robbery. All the hand-wringing, ash-heaping, and finger-pointing by legislatures and governors is misdirected. They dug their own grave and now they want taxpayers to lay in it.

California is in particularly dire straits. The state is facing a $15 billion deficit in the wake of multi-year increases in education, transportation and healthcare spending.

I asked John Matsusaka, Vice Dean and Professor at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business, whether he believes the state’s woes are attributable to overspending or revenue shortfalls.

“Revenue is up almost 40% from four years ago. This should have been more than enough to fund an orderly growth in state services. The problem is clearly over-spending,” he said.

Matsusaka pointed out that many people don’t feel they are benefiting from the additional spending, so it is difficult to justify the higher taxes as a result.

Much of California’s spending has been channeled into projects that benefit a few narrow interest groups, such as higher salaries for teachers and prison guards, rather than the public at large, he said. This kind of exclusionary spending “seems especially pronounced in times of huge revenue windfalls, such as we had in the last four years,” he said.

Matsusaka, Laffer and Moore agree that strict tax and expenditure limitations are a good solution to pre-venting states from going overboard during economic expansions.

“The most advisable path to avoid future fiscal crises is to keep spend-ing and tax receipts at a manageable and justifiable rate, usually population growth plus inflation,” Laffer and Moore wrote. They point to Colo-rado as an example of a tax and expenditure limitation that works well.

We used to have one of those in Washington, until certain members of the legislature exploited a loophole

in the law, lied about it, and then went to court to defend themselves. Personally I think they deserve a timeout. Act like children and be treated as such.

All mockery aside, Laffer and Moore caution against tax hikes as a response to the economic down-turn. “If history is any guide, states that try to respond to slow revenue growth and budget deficits with tax hikes will not gain tax revenues; they will lose businesses, jobs, and families.”

Sad thing about the baseball star I knew, he didn’t anticipate a disaster, but that’s exactly what he got. He injured his shoulder and the money dried up. By the time he realized what was happening, it was too late. He had no money for what he really needed—college—because he had blown it on toys.

All evidence on the table, I’m convinced a good lot of our legislators have conspired to allow their teenage boys (and girls) to run our state governments.

Regardless of who is running the state, the tax bur-den ought to concern everyone. As governments con-sume larger portions of our incomes, we have fewer resources to pursue our individual dreams—whether they be home ownership, travel, college, philanthropy, early retirement or any number of things you might love. It’s your life!

Governments are raising taxes, criminalizing donuts, monopolizing education, pilfering dreams and then blaming some nebulous force called the “economy” for not producing enough revenue.

This is not about “we.” This is not about “us.” This is not about the “common good” or any other such unquantifiable, socialist nonsense. This is about “I.” I want the freedom to pursue my happiness, and I don’t want government getting in the way.

Once back in the bargaining unit, WFSE failed to resume payroll deductions for several months. WFSE is now suing him for non-payment of dues during the time it failed to resume payroll deductions, without taking into account the amount overpaid while he was not even a part of the bargaining unit.

In the same lawsuit, WFSE joined as a defendant an active member of the armed services who is currently stationed in Afghanistan, in violation of the Soldiers & Sailors Civil Relief Act.

In Spokane County, WFSE is suing 35 people, includ-ing two ladies employed by DSHS.

“Thelma” and “Louise” both agreed to be full-blown members of WFSE. They filled out the paperwork, signed up for payroll deductions, and forwarded it along to the union as told. Several paychecks were issued without union dues deductions. Thelma and Louise called this to the attention of the union and the union told them that they were a little behind in processing payroll deductions because of a recent increase in union dues, thanked them for joining and regaled them with tales of the union “benefits” they would receive.

Now, WFSE is suing Thelma and Louise for non-pay-ment of dues the union failed to collect even though it had their permission to do so.

Unions enjoy vast power in this state and it’s high time the legislature reconsider statutory provisions that allow such extortionate practices. Workers should have the freedom to choose if they want collective representa-tion, and by whom. Unions should give workers a reason to want to join, not just force them into it.

(If you would like to view copies of any of the docu-ments referred to in this article, please visit www.effwa.org, go to the Labor Policy Center page, and click on the “Union Books Opened” banner. )

Union sacrifices members continued from page 8 . . .

“All the handwringing,

ash-heaping, and finger-

pointing by legislatures and

governors is misdirected.

They dug their own

grave and now they want

taxpayers to lay in it.”

10 LIVING LIBERTY

ou’ve got them right where you want them. It’s election season and the politicians need you. More

specifically, they need your vote.After the elections, they might tune the public out. But

until November 4, the politician’s vulnerability is the citizen’s strength.

Here are three ways to use your citizen power this election season.

EmAIl, ASk AND TEllAs candidates seek votes, voters can seek answers. If you want to know where a candidate stands or how they think about particular issues, why not ask?

Some very savvy activists do exactly that. They email questions to local candidates, eager to receive answers (or to see who fails to answer). Armed with this information, they distribute it on their own email lists or write about it in letters to the editor or blogs.

One tenacious and thoughtful citizen can inform tens or hundreds or even thousands of other voters.

The best questions of elected officials are short and to the point. They also need to be respectful and polite. Don’t tip your hand about what you think. You don’t want a candidate telling you what he or she thinks you want to hear.

GO TO A mEETIN’There will be countless forums and debates and meet ‘n’ greets this fall. Most will be attended by a flurry of candidates, some diehards from each cam-paign and a few reporters. That last group is key. They only report on what happens (hopefully), and what happens is often predictable and boring.

A few independent citizens armed with fact-filled questions might just spice things up. Find a candi-date forum near you, come up with a nice, short, factual question, and go ask away.

One thing I noticed from attending my own set of forums in the last election cycle is how much those who asked the questions controlled the stories that showed up in the newspaper the next day. Let’s give ‘em something to talk about.

AH, THE INTErNETThere are scoops out there, just waiting to be uncovered by some enterprising, Googling citi-zen. In the presidential race, the candidates will be scoured by reporters. Yet all too often in local and even state politics, the media doesn’t do much dig-ging.

With a little web searching, my wife discovered that two members of a candidate’s steering team were convicted felons. Looking through the Pub-lic Disclosure Commission’s web site (www.pdc.wa.gov), I’ve detected illegal and irregular cam-paign contributions. About things like these, the public really does have a right to know.

Fire up your web browser and find out where that candidate came from. Who are those advisors or associations listed on the campaign website? And who and where is the money coming from?

Often, the answers will be interesting but not earth-shattering. But Woodward and Bernstein probably wrote a lot of bland, dog-bites-man stories before getting the goods on Richard Nixon. Keep on searching and who knows what you might find.

s a mother of four young chil-dren under seven, teaching

principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise was hard to fit into our daily life. I mostly focused on teaching them not to jump on the furniture, not to hit each other and how to eat spaghetti with a fork, not their fingers—things important to my mother-in-law. Yet I was determined that if I cried at Veteran’s Parades or 4th of July celebrations—they would too!

I took to heart the adage, “Children are so busy watch-ing what you do, they sometimes can’t hear what you say.” I narrowed it down to three values that, if they ‘caught’ as children, I trusted would give them a fairly good chance of becoming good citizens, good stew-ards and defenders of this country. Providing emotional experiences that would cement those values in their hearts became a parenting priority.

AppreciationLike many, I am saddened today at the lack of under-standing and therefore lack of appreciation many young people have for freedom. As a busy mom, I didn’t have time or energy to assign blame to the education system or try to fix it. I only knew that my children were my responsibility and if they were going to learn to treasure the flag, speak respectfully of veterans or get on their feet at the national anthem—it was up to me.

Teaching appreciation seemed simple—take them to the cemetery. What better place to teach the cost of freedom then at a military Memorial Day service. We were deeply moved each and every time we drove on to the grounds through the flag archway, watched the color guard salute and saw families lovingly tend the head stones.

“Mom, why are there flags all over?” Lauren asked me once when she was four.“Those flags are to honor and thank all the sol-diers who died protecting our country, protecting your freedom.” I replied.Confused she asked.“Did they know me?”“No, honey, they didn’t know you.”“That was pretty nice of them!” “Yes, that was very nice of them.”

Critical thinkingIn 1995, there were two initiatives on the ballot that were important to me—I-173 proposing school vouch-ers and I-177 proposing school choice, so I worked on

the campaigns. I talked with my children about the ben-efits of school choice while I stuffed envelopes or while we walked our neighborhood door hanging.

“Does President Clinton know about this?” Lau-ren asked one day.“Yes, I’m pretty sure he knows.” I said grinning.“If this is so good for kids, why doesn’t he help us? I’m going to write him a letter and ask him.”“I’ll go get you some paper.”

She saved the president’s reply for years. It came on official letterhead with a real signature —a real signature of an aide no doubt—but it was an empowering moment that forever changed the way she looked at government leaders. She was eight and had a reasoned, logical posi-tion on school choice that she could articulate to the president of the United States. He thanked her for car-ing, for getting involved and encouraged her to keep up the good work. He never said a word about vouchers or his position on charter schools. She believed, however, that because she had argued her point so well, and boldly asked for his help, he must have been persuaded!

Strength to stand on principleWhere does the strength to stand on principle come from? I think it comes from having the opportunity to practice ‘standing’ when you’re young. Sometimes a young person stands alone, feels the pain, and learns he will survive. He learns there are principles and beliefs in life bigger than himself.

In 1990, I volunteered on Bob Williams’ congressional campaign. Actually it is more accurate to say I longed to volunteer. Not sure if it was inspiration or sheer boredom, but one day I decided we were going to have a neigh-borhood parade—a Bob Williams parade. I rounded up the neighborhood kids and gave them all yard signs. I threw together some chocolate chip cookies, grabbed some literature and we headed up the street chanting and laughing. My five year old son Taylor knocked on one door, offered our neighbor a fresh baked chocolate chip cookie and a Bob Williams brochure. The neighbor was painfully rude and slammed the door in his face! Taylor was hurt, crushed and wanted to go home. The question we had to answer at that moment with both of us wanting to cry was, “What is more important - our feelings or our mission?

As parents passionate about protecting our freedom, we don’t have to be historians, economists or soldiers. Learning specific dates, famous people and economic principles will come in time. The good news is that gratefulness, critical thinking skills and strength of character is ours to instill in the hearts of our children.

CEmETErIES ArE GrEAT ClASSrOOmSby Judy Parkins

Y

Citizen Powerby Trent England

A

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 $

oes your company hold a chari-table fund drive or offer matching

charitable contributions? Many companies have a special drive each year to encourage employees to give money to charities. These programs often include matching gifts from the company. Most drives will allow you to designate your gift for any non-profit organi-zation (like EFF). This includes the state’s annual Combined Fund Drive.

If your company does not offer a charitable fund drive, it may offer a matching gift pro-gram. Usually all that is required is for you

to send us a form with your check or credit card contribution. We send verification to your company that we are a 501(c)(3) orga-nization and have received your donation. Then they send us a matching check!

Please see if your company will match your contribution to EFF. Because we are a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, all con-tributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

For more information please contact Juliana McMahan, at (360) 956-3482 or JMcMahan@effwa.org.

& MaTchIng gIFTs by Juliana McMahancoMbInEd Fund drIVEs

Companies that provide matching gifts include:

AutodeskBank of AmericaExxonMobil RetireesHome Depot

LandAmercia Microsoft CorporationPlum Creek Timber Co.Safeco Insurance CompanyVerizonWashington MutualYour Company?

D

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 Protect assets from taxes (especially the death tax)

Learn about Charitable Remainder Trusts

Learn about Living Trusts, wills and annuities

Use your life values in estate planning

Choose the right tools for your particular situation

Learn where to get help

Topics

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

Responding to requests from EFF members, this workshop 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 professional 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 CEO Lynn Harsh will be in attendance. We look forward to having you with us.

Thursday, September 18, 20089:30 a.m. - 4 p.m.

Indian Summer Golf & Country ClubBordeaux Room

5900 Troon Lane SEOlympia, WA 98501

360-923-1075

Complimentary buffet luncheon

Attendance is limited to 40 people. Please RSVP by contacting Laurie at 1-800-769-6617 or IEndicott@effwa.org by September 15th.

Olympia

9-18-08

please join us!