Washington state taxpayers are suffering from a serious cycle of abuse…let's call it Battered Taxpayer Syndrome. The cycle is predictable. We work and pay taxes. They take the money, get drunk, beat us up, manipulate a little language until we quiet down a bit and then start over again. This is the pattern established after a few decades of one party rule. How does one get a restraining order on these people?

As the bruises set in from the drubbing we got over I-960, the legislature is cranking up the cycle of abuse with their special session due to start Monday. After weeks of releasing ghost bills, (bills with just a tittle and number, but no text), shutting down and obstructing opportunities for public comment and shamefully staging public hearings with the socialist freeloading brats from Evergreen State, I am feeling somewhat desperate on how to escape this cycle. Can the citizens call a restraining order on the democrats?

It turns out one of the ghost bills was a proposal to institute a state income tax on "high earners." It gets better. Senator Lisa Brown, who has for years been trying to convince us that if we really know what's best for us we would all support a state income tax, proposed that a version of this ghost bill be presented to the people for a vote on November's ballot. The people would be allowed to weigh-in on this bill by answering one simple question that will appear as a referendum: "Should the state reduce the sales tax and institute a 4.5% income tax on high earners?"

What does this mean? It means that Olympia democrats are doing what they always do: inciting class warfare to get what they want. What will really happen if the voters answer "yes" to this question? After a year or so the sales tax will go back up (because they will tell us that orphans are lining the streets and grandma is eating dog food) and the state income tax will expand to include "middle-high income earners," until it eventually includes everyone who works. They are counting on our gullibility and guilt to get more money to fund the commitments they've made to their interest groups. This is the manipulative part of the abuse.

Perhaps even more beguiling is why they bother to put this legislation on the ballot for public vote. They just repealed an initiative (I-960) that we passed three times and one that they attacked and challenged in court four times. Why would we believe that they actually care about the will of the voters anyway?

But what about all the cuts to services and programs that the legislature has had to make? Aren't the poor getting turned away for much needed services as it is? The dirty little secret is that our legislators, in spite of the wailing and tearful speeches, have increased spending by $1.3 billion for the 2009-2011 budget! That is not a typo--the total spending for the next budget includes new spending for new entitlements and programs.One example is a new middle class entitlement for pre-k education. Read more about the legislature's Enron-style budgeting in this State of the State Report by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

Add to the increased spending the fact that legislators are counting a one time federal stimulus payment (that we are projected to get in 2011) as revenue available to help cover this new spending. That's a little like deciding you can afford a more expensive mortgage based on your 2011 tax refund. Last year lawmakers balanced the budget by using a one time $3 billion federal stimulus payment, while keeping and increasing budget obligations.

They are devising ways to increase your taxes (reducing your take home pay) to fund increases such as state employee benefits and salaries. State employees received a 25% increase in their salaries between 2005-2009, even while they earn an average $5,302 more per year than their private sector counterparts. Funding these premium benefits on the back of taxpayers is unsustainable.

One option suggested and practiced by several states, is to contract out to private companies some of the services provided by government. It's a better deal for the taxpayer and keeps services operating more efficiently on a business model, rather than on a bureaucratic model. The Governor had the option of declaring a state of emergency (which they often do with spending bills that require more taxes, but are loathe to do when it comes to cutting their spending). By declaring a state of emergency (given that we are operating on a path toward certain bankruptcy), the Governor would be allowed to renegotiate state employee contracts. 

They won't consider this option….state employee unions play the role of abuser's mistress. She gets the flowers and expensive penthouse apartment, while we get to pay for it.

Now a special session is under way. They are not in gridlock about spending cuts, but on which taxes to increase.They can't decide whether to aim for the gut or to haul off and bitch-slap us. And so the cycle of abuse continues.

 Seattle Weekly is reporting some high level murmurings that former King County Executive candidate, Susan Hutchison, as a possible and attractive candidate against Senator Patty Murray. It's getting more interesting with each passing day.....

I know there is a lot of anticipation about whether Dino Rossi will join the race for U.S. Senate. He is clearly the favorite with the most affection and name recognition in the state. At this point in time, he is not a contender, though. Perhaps he's waiting for the March 31 FEC filings, when candidates reveal their financial status.

I still maintain that the only serious US Senate candidate in the race, so far, is Paul Akers. I am not prepared to "endorse" him yet, but at this point in the race, he's the only candidate that caused me to sit up and take notice. What sets Paul Akers apart from the other pool of Senate candidates? 

Marketing. Movement. Energy. Message. Not necessarily in that order. 

Let me tell you why I take him seriously after I first explain my reservations about the current candidates, in general.

My first concern with all the candidates is that they are untested in the all-consuming, corruptive world of politics. It is actually hard to take seriously any candidate whose first run for elected office is the U.S. Senate. At first glance it seems either arrogant, reckless, or naive. That's my first impression.

Even though Patty Murray is known for her now famous "Mom in Tennis Shoes" campaign of 1992, she arrived at that point after successfully getting elected to office in her school district (1985-1989) and then to the state senate (1989-1993). She had been tested and earned serious consideration from her community and the state to represent them in federal office.

Fast forward to 2010 and compare the current crop of candidates vying for Senator Murray's seat. The most visible are Chris Widener, Clint Didier and Paul Akers.

Chris Widener has an active presence on Facebook and founded an organization called "Positively Republican." I've run into him at conservative gatherings and heard him do a nice polite introduction of himself. He is a former pastor. He's a positive guy.

I know less of Clint Didier, but I hear from trusted insiders that he has a very winning personal presence and a bit of the rural "I like folks" charm. His charm, sincerity and celebrity football past make him an appealing candidate. I'd love to have a beer with him and talk politics, for sure. 

I know nothing about two other candidates running, Art Coday and Sean Salazar, other than the people campaigning for them really believe in their candidates. As it should be, I suppose, but nothing has inspired me to stop and listen to them. 

This scenario we find ourselves in is distressing, given that 2010 has the potential to launch a new direction for our state that is suffocating from decades of oligarchy and single party rule. 

Paul Akers is the only candidate that has given me even a moment of hope. I mentioned marketing, movement, energy & message. 

Akers' radio ads are running during the Rush Limbaugh show and at various times on TV. They are positive and interesting. They give a brief introduction to his style (confident), his message (jobs, fiscal restraint) and a little bit of his story (self-made entrepreneur). This is the marketing part. Marketing is more than just having a happy face message. It's moving that message out into public circles for consumption. It's moving into mass media, beyond twitter and social networking sites.

Paul has either raised enough money to promote his candidacy or he has enough of his own to put on the table. At this point he is the only one getting his message out in a professional, high quality venue and the fact that he is willing to lay it out there sets him apart from the others. 

He recently  appeared on the Fox Business network. He was clearly comfortable sitting in the hot seat answering questions and persuading the naysayers and he was a natural with a national audience.

Tomorrow (Tuesday, March 9) he will be a guest on the Lars Larson show. He is constantly moving to the next venue and whoever is scheduling him for these gigs is demonstrating  professional level campaign staff skills. This campaign is kinesthetic. It's got the kind of movement that makes people want to get on the train and wave signs.

Besides moving a message that will echo into the voters' minds, the candidate has to have energy. It's an unfair reality that introverts have a harder time campaigning. Their energy is interior. Paul Akers has extrovert energy. The kind that blows into a room, commands attention and motivates thought and reaction. This is just a personal charism that a person either has or doesn't have. It's not therapeutic, thoughtful, energy, but kinesthetic.

Finally, Akers has the right message and enough of a story to back up his message. His success at creating manufacturing jobs and promoting products without over-spending or acquiring massive debt gives him the kind of credibility that Senator Murray doesn't have. She represents the status quo that is spending our country into oblivion--he represents an example of creating jobs and prosperity for all.

In fact, I'm rather excited to see a Murray- Akers  debate. He'll clean the floor on matters of economic prosperity, job creation and basic fiscal common sense. He doesn't shy away from his conservative views on abortion, either, which has been problematic in this state where the pro-abortion lobby is aggressive. It is NOT a winning strategy to ignore these questions, obfuscate or hope they go away. Nor is it a good idea to evangelize on the issue. An unapologetic, confident stance is all that's necessary.

Senator Patty Murray has benefitted from a solid network of handlers and staffers who are savvy, responsive and smart. She, on the other hand, always sounds as though she is guessing at what to say. She speaks to the public as though she is reading someone else's words, hoping that whoever wrote them really knew what they were doing.

Finally, Paul Akers is showing that he intends to win the race. I received a press release that the Akers' campaign has hired a campaign management software company that has maintained a 98% win rate over the past 30 years. The company teams up with only one campaign per contest with a focus toward winning, not volume.

Akers is working for this seat like a champion trains for a race. He's hired a staff that is motivated, he's put himself on stage and he's invested in high caliber resources to assist his effort. He deserves credit for this and has certainly earned my confidence in his ability to win.

Earlier this week, I attended a meeting of We The People – Southwest Washington, the primary “Tea Party” group in my area. I came away from the meeting with a great sense of encouragement that this group is making significant progress, in terms of becoming a consistent and constructive force in our political culture.

In order to more clearly understand the basis for my encouragement, I think it’s important to, first, take a look at this organization’s Vision and Mission Statements … 

Vision:

The Great American experiment has to this day been a question of a people's capacity to self-govern thus maintaining individual freedoms. When the balance of power between those governed and those given consent to govern becomes imbalanced, liberty and prosperity suffer. We desire that the essential balance of power, having been tipped to the side of those governing, would be restored to its optimal condition.

Mission:

In all of human history it is found that freedom is the exception, not the norm. The pillars of the American experiment and of the resultant liberty have been a civically moral, educated, and active people. Our mission is to encourage each other, our families, and our communities in these pursuits, thus reasserting civic ownership and control of our cities, state, and nation.

 While these statements are inspiring, what’s truly important is following a Vision and carrying out a Mission to achieve an Objective. I think the Objective, extracted from these statements, is: “To restore the balance of power through reasserting civic ownership.” If that’s accurate, there is clear evidence of this group achieving their Objective, in the Agenda of this week’s meeting and the overall program it fits into.

This week’s meeting of We The People – Southwest Washington was the first in a series, where the Agenda focuses on Candidate Vetting. Generally, this involves inviting in three candidates from three separate races – e.g. a U.S. Senate Candidate, a U.S. Congress Candidate and a State Legislature Candidate. Each candidate is given a few minutes to speak and then they are vetted through questioning by a prepared panel of three, as well as random questions (selected by lottery) from the audience. In addition to Candidate Vetting, the Agenda also allows for addressing local issues. For this week’s meeting the local issue was Light-rail and it featured a discussion led by Randal O'Toole, of the Cato Institute. Finally, to assure a more universal achievement of the Objective, this group’s program is networked with matching programs of similar organizations across the State.

It may be obvious that the program outlined above is well designed to achieve its Objective but, without “those governed” participating, there is no real achievement. In this case, on a rainy workday evening, at an elementary school in Vancouver, WA, nearly 100 of “those governed” showed up to participate. This fact is the real basis of my encouragement about what this group is accomplishing. As simple as this participation may seem, it clearly embodies the true spirit of the “Tea Party” movement. Through this, “the powers that be” are being put on notice that we will no longer stand idly by while they anoint candidates based on old-style measures or determine the direction of important issues through political-insider backroom deals. With this, in fact, “the essential balance of power” is being tipped back towards “those governed.”

I want to commend Thomas Hann and his Core Team at We The People – Southwest Washington, for this achievement, through their relentlessly patriotic work. And, I want to encourage them to keep up this good work, along with their counterparts across our nation. This effort recognizes that America’s greatness never came from its government but from its people. My hope is that this work will result in my children, like me, being blessed to experience America at its greatest and being able to hand that greatest nation over to my grandchildren.

This just takes the cake. Ignoring our WA State Constitution’s mandate (as interpreted by the courts) to put education above all other state expenditures, the House passed HB 2893 which makes deep cuts to education funding, although funding for less important projects remains intact. The Senate committee on Education has also passed it, and it is now in Ways and Means. Families with students at my local alternative public school, Scriber Lake and the Edmonds Homeschool Resource Center, are understandably upset about the news that their grade school students will likely lose the opportunity to participate in a publicly-funded ‘cyberschool’ program. These are families who, for a variety of reasons, have found that cookie-cutter schooling does not work well for their children, but these parents prefer to have the oversight of a public school teacher rather than go it on their own with all-out homeschooling. As a lifelong educator, I advocate having as many choices as possible available to parents and schoolchildren. We all know every student, and every family, has different needs. So why eliminate a system that is working well for so many families? My husband, with his Edmonds Daybreakers Rotary Club, volunteers at Scriber Lake and has seen firsthand the benefits of this special program and the dedicated teachers who help students succeed, often against incredible odds, whether it be a learning disability, an unintended pregancy, health problems, etc. 

The votes in the House and on the Senate Ed. committee fell on party lines, which makes one wonder; why would Democrats, including my opponent Marko Liias, vote to cut funding from education, when they leave intact the following less-important funding? $6.4 million for the Eastern WA State Historical Society. $7.8 million for the WA State Historical Society. $6.7 million for the State Arts Commission. $4.7 million for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. $245 million for the State Liquor Board. I could go on, but you get the idea. None of those programs are mandated in the State Constitution, but education is ‘of paramount importance.’ The estimated savings for cutting the 7,100 K-6 students off of alternative education programs would be $22,745,000, a tenth of the cost for our state liquor board. Approximately 22% of the kids served by these programs are former dropouts. So if they are cut off, I think it’s a reasonable expectation that they might be a cost to society down the road. Let’s invest in them now. 

It’s always wrong for politicians to hold essential services hostage while funding their own wishlists. We know they do it so they can raise taxes without too much fuss. But we’re onto them. And we’re appalled that they would slash funding from education while finding money for new touch-screen kiosks at museums. 

Time to elect representatives with a different set of priorities. Education first. Period. 

Elizabeth Scott
Candidate for State Representative, 21st LD. pos. 2
www.elizabeth4state.com


See also http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/washington_policy_center_/2010/02/olympia-budget-writers-want-to-families-to-leave-public-education-to-save-the-state-money.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WashingtonPolicyCenterBlog+%28Washington+Policy+Center%27s+Blog%29

As the U.S. Senate race in Washington state heats up, it's predictable that the boosters of various candidates start to show up on the web.

A RedState diarist named D.S. White has given a couple of his takes on the race that call for some reality checks.  In a diary titled "Career politicians need not apply in Washington State," White opines:

I’m sure Sen. [Don] Benton [R-Vancouver] is a very decent men [sic], but the idea of replacing one career politician with another leaves about the same taste in my mouth as moldy bread.  I think voters are tired of having to chose [sic] between the lesser of two evils.  We’re tired of establishment politicians.  I think we’d much rather vote for a Senate candidate, rather than be forced to vote against Patty Murray.  Do I think we can do better than an establishment republican and career politician?  Well, to drag out another phrase from the Obama campaign trail, “YES, WE CAN” !!

In comments to another story he posted, White states "Mr. Benton is also a lawyer and I personally can not vote for a lawyer."

Now, I do not happen to like Senator Benton as a candidate much either.  He has had campaign finance problems, was voted out of the chairmanship of the Washington State Republican Party after just eight months for perceived mismanagement of campaign funds, and is infamously known for complaining about state senators losing their private dining room and French chef during a budget pinch.

But let's get a few things straight.  Benton IS NOT an attorney.  He holds a business degree from Concordia College in Portland.  Benton is founder and CEO of The Benton Group, a sales and management consulting firm.  

And "career politician?"  The Washington Legislature meets 3-4 months a year.  As a member of the Washington Senate, Benton makes $42,106 a year.  I would hardly call a part-time job like that a "career."  As to Benton's 14-year tenure in the Washington Senate, you know who else served in a state senate for nearly that long?  Newly sworn-in U.S. Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who was a state senator since 1998.  I don't recall any accusations of Brown being a "career politician."

Let's see, who else would qualify as a career politician?  How about Ronald Reagan, who served eight years as governor of California? The Founding Fathers?  Thomas Jefferson was in the Virginia House of Burgesses for seven years prior to writing the Declaration of Independence.  George Washington had served in the same body for nearly twenty years prior to taking over the Continental Army.  John Adams had been a Massachusetts legislator and *gasp* a lawyer (he even defended British troops accused of murder in the Boston Massacre) before his cousin Sam's famous Tea Party.   In fact, nearly all of the 55 delegates to the Continental Congress had experience in colonial and state government, and the majority had held county and local offices

This "cult of the amateur" that seems to be growing among certain populist conservative circles is dangerous.  Leaders do not spring forth fully grown from Zeus' forehead, they are grown.  And there are plenty of good conservatives in Washington with political experience, such as Dino Rossi.  The idea of a Jefferson Smith going to Washington may be romantic and even patriotic, but not very realistic.  Political novices are unknown in the U.S. Senate for a reason. Voters look for qualifications and previous legislative indicators before sending a representative to that august body (ultimately, the political machine that appointed Jeff Smith did not do a very good job vetting him first.)

A much better movie analogy is "Dave," in which Kevin Kline's title character, a temp agency owner,  is suddenly thrust into the role of President of the United States by a corrupt chief-of-staff because he bears a remarkable resemblance to the recenlty deceased Commander-in-Chief.  Once the ruse is uncovered, Dave decides he likes politics and wants to make a difference, so he starts back at Square One by running for city council.

In another diary titled "Senate race in Washington State,"  White gushes: 

Chris Widener: Easily the most energetic of the five candidates, Mr. Widener has a almost Reagan/Clinton appeal that connects well with an audience.  Charisma is not the only Reagan trait that Chris shares with the late President.  His conservative political philosophy could have been written by Reagan himself.  Mr. Widener has a very well organized campaign, an impressive string of endorsements, and at this point could arguably be considered the front runner in this race.

Errr, okay.  All Widener has done politically so far is show up for a few campaign events.  It might be just a little early to compare him with Reagan.

I expect the rhetoric from all the camps to pick up in the next few weeks.  That's to be expected.  However, I fear the various candidates are factionalizing the party and making whoever is the eventual nominee's job that much harder.