SEIU corrupts health care workers rights

SEIU is working hard to keep home health care workers in the dark about their right to leave the union (for background, click here). SEIU also wants to move the administration of home health care workers out of the state's hands.

How often do you see a government employee union want to contract out state work? That alone tells you something unusual (and fishy) is going on here. The union wants it because then home health care workers would not have the same rights to leave SEIU if they choose. This is about keeping the union dues flowing in from low-wage workers to SEIU, and preventing people from exercising the rights the Supreme Court has said they have.

Gov. Inslee and many legislative Democrats are bending over backwards to help SEIU, which is a major contributor to Democrats. They, too, benefit from keeping the dues money flowing. They're doing this even though contracting out to an outside entity will actually be far more expensive than keeping the task within DSHS. And they're pushing an anti-transparency bill even though every newspaper editorial board that has weighed in calls it a bad idea.

The governor and these legislators are withstanding the pressure so they can aid their ally and contributor. If this is about principles, it's sure hard to see it.

-Rob McKenna

Governor’s carbon tax is not about carbon reduction

By Rep. Cary Condotta

With just about three weeks remaining in the legislative session a lot of the focus will be on reaching an agreement on our three supplemental budgets – operating, capital and transportation. There shouldn’t be much tweaking to the transportation budget or the capital budget, since we just passed a two-year capital spending plan.

The operating budget negotiations will be the focus. A big part of that debate will revolve around new revenue – or taxes. There continues to be a thirst for new tax revenue in Olympia. This session there seems to be no end to bills that raise or create new taxes.

There are proposals to raise B&O taxes, a capital gains excise tax (a form of income tax), the sugar and sweetener tax modeled after the city of Seattle’s policy – but on a larger scale, a wireless device tax, and of course the one gaining the most attention – a carbon tax. Why is this needed with the new revenue report showing the largest increase in taxpayer revenue yet?

There are a few different carbon tax proposals out there, but I want to focus on the governor’s plan, Senate Bill 6203. I touched on his proposal in a previous update, but I think it is imperative we continue to discuss this proposal. The governor has been in the 12th District and eastern Washington making a big push for his idea.

His plan has been modified recently – now taxing carbon emissions generated by transportation fuels and power plants starting at $10 per metric ton beginning July, 2019. It has some other changes, but what hasn’t changed is who it is going to impact – those who can least afford it: lower-income and middle class families.

The governor’s staff admitted that his proposal would increase the costs of fuel, natural gas and energy bills for consumers. His plan amounts to a 10-cent gas tax right out of the gate.

The governor claims private companies and corporations are coming around and many are supportive. That isn’t surprising, many may fall under one of the more than 50 carve outs, or exemptions, that are built into his plan, including “aircraft fuel.” So, a person who decides to fly their jet to the Bahamas for a getaway weekend would not pay a carbon tax, but the people needing to heat their homes or commute to work will be.

Investor-owned utilities also get a free pass under the governor’s proposal. Consumers will pay more, but the utilities are able to claim a credit against the carbon tax and reinvest the money back into the utility if they have a clean energy investment plan. You can understand why public utility districts like it.

Reducing carbon emissions is a reasonable idea. However, the governor’s plan seems to be more about raising revenue than reducing carbon. The tax would increase by 3.5 percent each year, plus inflation. It is projected to raise about $700 million over the first two years. If it were about reducing carbon, where are the incentives in the proposal for carbon reduction? If this is about carbon and not revenue, where is the off-setting tax reduction to make it revenue neutral? These questions need to be asked.

House Republicans have an incentive-laden measure, House Bill 2283, that passed out of the House Technology and Economic Development with a strong, bipartisan vote of 13-4. It is now in the House Finance Committee.

Finally, as I have questioned before, why would the governor tax our power? Washington state has some of the cleanest power in the world. Once again, this plan does very little to reduce carbon in the 12th District. We should be concentrating on the transportation sector which is what I am doing with House Bill 2339 and House Bill 2340 – incentivizing the use of electric cars and fleets of semis. This approach is far less costly and will have much better results.

Keep in mind, as the federal government is considering a twenty-five-cent gas tax increase, the price of fuel will increase dramatically. This means our two biggest industries will be directly affected. Price inputs will accelerate on all farm and agriculture production. Farmers do not control prices so the small guys will be squeezed out.

Tourism will be directly affected. When fuel prices rise into the mid-$3 range people don’t travel nearly as much. RV traffic will be reduced as well.

The bottom line is that the cost of the governor’s proposal will be put on the backs of the citizens of Washington state – increased energy costs, higher prices for groceries, goods and services, as well as a hike in the gas tax. There are better ways to do this, but not in a manner that seems to be more about the money and less about addressing our carbon footprint.

-- Rep. Cary Condotta’s email update

Capital punishment and school murders

Washington has had some form of capital punishment since territorial days, with the exception of several periods where the death penalty was either legislatively abolished or ruled unconstitutional.  Murder used to be rare.

Washington's current death penalty statute was enacted in 1981.  Of the 33 people that have been sentenced to death since 1981, five persons have been executed -- one execution per 7 years -- hardly an excessive use of the statute. 

Almost precisely 3 years ago, Governor Inslee ordered a moratorium on executions in death penalty cases. 

It is true that not every murder is cold-blooded, and extenuating circumstances should be considered when a just punishment is sought.  But the true evil doer should be completely removed from society by final means, not allowed to persist in relative comfort with nothing to fear.

Today the legislature is considering a ban on use of the death penalty (Senate Bill 6052).  The stated purpose of the bill is to reduce expense, while letting the murderer live.

~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, a deranged 19 year old rampages in Florida, murdering children in high school.  The leftist Democrats calls for gun ban "conversations" have started, as if punishing the law-abiding gun owner will prevent the evil of murder.

Governor Inslee sponsors restrictions on gun ownership.  This is complete moral inversion:  The law abiding gun owner is to be punished for doing no harm, and the violent murderer is to be allowed to escape full justice for his crime.

Modern leftism promotes violence by letting the violent live and punishing the innocent.  It would be laughable if it didn't cost so many lives.

Carbon tax - getting tax-fat and sounding moral

 

An update on Governor Inslee's motor fuel tax proposal is that it has passed out of the Washing State Senate Ways and Means Committee.  See how happy the "Democratic" sponsors look?

When the tax increase is finally enacted, this is how much tax it will add to the price of gasoline:

A tax of 87.8¢ per gallon will be added to the cost of gasoline.

~~~~~~~~

 

Background

The current legislative session is considering huge carbon taxes on the people.   A large number of tax increases put forth are to tax carbon emissions, based on the phony assertion that carbon emission is bad for the environment (you exhale carbon dioxide, which trees use to build themselves).  Republicans used to keep such nonsense under control -- we may become very sorry we allowed the Democratics to run the legislature and the Governor's Mansion.

A search for the term 'carbon tax' returned 96 hits on the legislative website.  Here are a few of them:

1. 2230(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to enacting a carbon emissions tax
2. 5509(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to promoting an equitable clean energy economy by creating a carbon tax
3. 1646(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to promoting an equitable clean energy economy by creating a carbon tax
4. 5930(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to establishing a carbon pollution tax
5. 1555(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to establishing a carbon pollution tax
6. 5127(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to establishing a carbon pollution tax
7. 6096(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to climate protection
8. 6203(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to reducing carbon pollution
9. 1646 HBA ENVI 17(2017-18) Promoting an equitable clean energy economy by creating a carbon tax
10. 5385 SBA EET 17(2017-18) Creating a fossil fuel carbon pollution tax
11. 6335(2017-18) AN ACT Relating to creating a fossil fuel carbon pollution tax

I added links to the status page on the Washington State Legislature website, but a the information at those links may be out of date.

 

~~~~~~~~

 

Modern farm cost of production is sensitive to fuel cost.  Fro example, an increase of 20¢ per gallon  in fuel cost will increase cost just for wheat by between 1.25¢ to 4.5¢ per bushel at the farm.  Even if you ride the bus, there will be increase in cost of production and transportation of all the everyday food you eat.  That is unconscionable.

SEIU-backed bill is power politics at its most brazen – and it stinks

The bill Senate Democrats tried to run Wednesday night on behalf of the Service Employees International Union 775 (SEIU) – a “major political contributor to Washington Democrats” – is “an inappropriate sweetheart deal that is trying to be muscled through by the union and the governor at a late hour.”

That straight-forward and blunt assessment is from Sen. Joe Fain (R-Auburn) after he and his GOP colleagues fought against SB 6199 past 1:00 a.m. Thursday. Democrats threw in the towel but plan to bring up the bill again later.

Fain’s take on the bill is a lot more honest than that of legislative Democrats, who cannot speak out loud the bill’s true purpose: To prevent home care workers from having a choice of whether to join SEIU or not. They don’t want workers to have a choice – but they know they shouldn’t say that.
Fain’s take was also a lot more up-front than SEIU’s – the union is maintaining radio silence. In every news story covering this bill, SEIU’s leaders declined comment and told reporters to talk to Gov. Jay Inslee’s DSHS or legislators instead. They don’t want to answer reporters’ questions or defend this legislation, which is pure power politics at its most brazen.

What’s this all about?
This legislation has been in the works since 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that “quasi-public” employees – like the home care workers in SEIU, many of whom take care of family members – cannot be forced to join a union or pay fees to one. They are free to leave SEIU entirely, which the union doesn’t like at all. SEIU has been working with Gov. Inslee’s office since 2014 to get around this freedom and lock workers back into the union.

SEIU’s goals – which Inslee and legislative Democrats are lock-step on – are twofold: To work out a new system that will keep home care workers from leaving the union, and in the meantime to prevent the Freedom Foundation from contacting home care workers to let them know they can leave.
Sen. John Braun (R-Centralia), who also opposes the bill, said Thursday, “This isn’t a judgment about whether [home care workers] should be in the union or not be in the union. We think it should be their choice…The Supreme Court said they have a choice,” but SB 6199 is an attempt to take away that choice.

What this bill isn’t
SB 6199 certainly isn’t about saving money, or improving transparency, or providing better services to Medicaid clients. The bill would make an entity outside of state government home care workers’ official employer, meaning those workers wouldn’t have the same freedom to leave SEIU that they won in Quinn.

It will cost more money ($22-26 million more per biennium) to have a third-party entity administer the system rather than keeping it within DSHS. That’s money that could be spent on providing better services. It will make bargaining, which already takes place behind closed doors, even less transparent to the taxpayers.

Yet that’s not how this legislation was presented by Inslee’s DSHS or the bill’s sponsors, who tried to act like it was a simple contracting-out bill. No one was fooled. Braun noted, “When was the last time you saw the governor present a contracting-out bill, or the union support it?”
For that matter, DSHS is acting like it would be relieved to have the burden of administering the system taken on by an outside entity. When is the last time you heard a government agency – especially DSHS – say that?

If it were a real contracting-out bill, it would be an open competition and the usual ethics rules would be in place. Instead, the bill makes all kinds of exemptions that favor SEIU. The Freedom Foundation points out some of the important amendments Senate Republicans offered:

• protecting the ability of IPs to make their own decisions about whether to join and financially support SEIU;
• limiting contracts between DSHS and the consumer directed employer to four years’ duration instead of indefinitely, and requiring the agency to periodically re-evaluate whether more qualified vendors exist;
• eliminating a provision in the bill exempting DSHS from having to use standard competitive procurement procedures, including complying with ethics requirements, when selecting a consumer directed employer;
• requiring the consumer directed employer to comply with the state Public Records Act; and,
• preventing conflicts of interest by prohibiting the consumer directed employer from having any affiliation with the union representing IPs.

Senate Democrats rejected all of them. They weren’t voting for what the taxpayers would want, they were voting for what SEIU wants.

Keeping the dues money flowing
Fain said, “It’s a straight-up giveaway…This isn’t about fixing any problems with our existing system, this is about a sweetheart deal to ensure a particular union in our state can grab a bunch of members back.”

That’s a lot clearer than the weak rationalization Senate Majority Leader Sharon Nelson (D-Maury Island) gave for supporting the bill. “I’m taking a look at making sure that our workers who are taking care of the most vulnerable folks in this state can continue operating and we believe at this point in time, this is the best way to go,” she said.

In contrast, Braun also spoke more clearly about his opposition – a sign that he believes what he’s saying. “The reality is, the governor and others receive substantial contributions from these organizations, and they are doing their bidding in the Legislature. And it gives the very strong appearance of impropriety,” he said.

It’s more than an appearance – it stinks to high heaven.

-Rob McKenna

reposted from Smarter Government Washington

Raising the cost of Democracy.

Whenever the "Democratic" Party has tried to increase Washington State government control or taxes on the people, they have been frustrated by the initiative process.  A recent example is the income tax proposal in 2010, when the people of the state soundly defeated the measure.  And you have heard of Tim Eyman, who uses the the initiative process to try to control the state legislature's impulse to spend recklessly. 

In response to legitimate use of the petition process to review (and repeal) the legislature's actions, the "Democratic" Party has decided to make filing a petition on the ballot more expensive for the People.  SSB 5386 would increase the filing fee to $200 (The original version of the bill would have increased the filing fee to $500).  The "Democratic" Party controls the state legislature, and Governor Inslee has indicated he will sign this bill if passed.

Obviously, if Eyman and others had not been effective using initiatives to control the spending and micromanaging impulses of the Democrats, the Democrats would not care to make initiatives more harder to use.  It is ironic that the "Democratic Party" views raw democracy as an adversary --  but it is not a surprise.