State budgets have been hurting in a bad way. Across the country, legislatures continue to struggle to close deficits while still providing essential services. While cuts have been necessary, the wrong cuts can be devastating and ironically, very costly.

On the chopping block time and again has been online learning. This is due to the fact that, financially speaking, there’s a common misunderstanding about how online learning fits into public education. Unfortunately, it is viewed as an extra program, something schools and taxpayers pay more to offer. In reality, online and blended schools are simply alternative methods of delivering a public education. But because of this misunderstanding, legislators continue to go to online learning when making cuts.

So why is online learning a costly cut? There are three unique costs when budget cuts force an online program to close.

First, cutting funding to online programs can actually cost taxpayers more money.

When reduced funding forces an online program to close its doors, it’s likely the majority of students will return to traditional public schools. Each state has its own funding mechanism for online schools, but it’s typically safe to say digital programs receive funding from fewer sources than traditional schools and are therefore more cost-effective. (For example, in Washington, online schools typically don’t receive any local levy funding.)

Thus costs increase when students who formerly attended an online school are forced to transfer to a traditional school. In this situation, the only savings comes if students choose to opt out of the public school system altogether and attend a private school or homeschool. Students leaving the public school system should never be considered a viable cost-savings measure.

But even more important than the increased expense is the cost to students and their futures when online programs are cut.

While simply an alternative to traditional public school (and not an add-on), online programs have the ability to offer much more than their brick-and-mortar counterparts. They create opportunities where none exist, allowing students in every corner of America to get state-of-the-art instruction from world class teachers in subjects their local schools might not be able to offer.

They provide flexibility and customization that isn’t possible in a classroom of 30 students with a single teacher and a whiteboard.

In a nutshell, online learning opens a world of opportunity to every student wherever Internet access is available.

When an online school is forced to close due to funding cuts, the door to that world of opportunity is slammed shut. Kids are sentenced back to the 19^th century education model their great-grandparents used.

When state policymakers cut online learning, taxpayers pay more and students get less.

The third cost of cutting online programs is to the state that moves backward in the education race while the rest of the country and world press on.

The only direction any society can afford to move in education is forward. That’s why digital learning—in all its forms—must be a priority if this generation and the next are to compete in today’s global idea economy and become tomorrow’s leaders.

###

[featured photo credit: readerwalker]

Politics is its own type of warfare, a battle of ideas and between personalities, one in which words are the munitions and an array of media options comprise the arsenal of weapons available in modern campaigning.

For decades, mass media such as newspapers, magazines, radio, and television have dominated the communications stratagem of large and medium-sized races, a fact that made every effort to win votes increasingly costly, tipping the balance of political privilege to those with the will to act and monetary means to amplify their actions.

In a column last Friday in The Washington Times, communications strategy consultant Anthony Welcher argues that the ability to understand the asymmetrical power of social media could make or break candidate aspirations in many close races this year, including the race for Washington State Governor between Republican candidate Rob McKenna and Democratic hopeful Jay Inslee.

Welcher writes:

Two-term Attorney General Rob McKenna is running for governor in Washington, a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the chief executive’s seat in more than 30 years. The Evergreen State is an ideal proving ground for an effective digital campaign strategy, as the state’s electorate is one of the most educated and most broadband-oriented in the nation. Starting with the campaign’s kickoff, Mr. McKenna deployed an engaging digital-media campaign that has disseminated his plans for Washington by actively engaging his base of support and its friends through social media. The result was surprising momentum early in the cycle, when campaigns generally founder in their attempts to gain public attention, as the media only covers candidate fundraising and early polling.

Why do we know his use of digital media is effective? For a solid blue state where President Obama still polls acceptably, Mr. McKenna built a lead in several polls that has increased recently to outside the margin of error. Earlier this year, the campaign received national attention when Campaigns and Elections magazine judged it to be the third-best campaign blog in the nation.

Welcher—whose career includes a 7-year stint serving in the Bush administration—is running this year to replace Jeff Kent as Washington’s national committeeman to the Republican National Committee; his campaign has focused on a theme of improving Washington State Republican’s relationship to the RNC and using communications technology to eliminate the information gap between grass-roots party activists and the leaders of the party.

The scramble by Kent and Welcher to woo the votes of county chair, vice chairs, and members of the State Executive Committee is very close, by some accounts, and issues of the Republican Party’s future will likely be a fulcrum of debate when the voting takes place later this week.

Washington State has missed out this year on receiving any early “Victory” dollars from the RNC, a pass-over that forces the WSRP to tap other resources for financing get out the vote efforts this November.

As Welcher wrote in a letter to Republican county chairs last month, “Due to a lack of follow through in the past, those dollars almost always show up late and leave early.”

In Washington State Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wilbur’s endorsement of Welcher for the position, Wilbur built up Welcher’s bona fides but also took square aim at the incumbent Kent:

[T]he incumbent, who talks a lot about the powers of incumbency in his campaign, has not raised one penny for any of our programs; nor has he ever asked me, not once, “Kirby, how can I help?“

In fact, last year he asked the WSRP to meet his commitment to raise money for the RNC by borrowing our donor list and issuing yet another direct mail hit on our donors. You should ask why, after 12 years, he is unable to raise $10,000 for the RNC let alone a single dollar for the WSRP?

Wilbur’s allusion to a current lack of state influence with the RNC could become half of the debate on the committeeman choice; the question of whether the state party should prioritize a communications revolution could be the other.

Read Welcher’s entire op-ed at The Washington Times.

###

Authors Heather Staker and Michael B. Horn define blended learning as follows: “A formal education program in which a student learns at AND at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home.”

Blended programs shake up the 19th century education model and put the emphasis back on students. These two videos illustrate the success possible through blended learning: KIPP Empower Academy and Carpe Diem Collegiate High School and Middle School.

If you’re interested in learning more about the blended learning revolution, download Innosight’s report. Better yet, make a copy and give it to your local school board. As always, the iLearn Project is here to help.

Higher test scores and lower costs are just around the corner for Washington’s schools through blended learning. Sign up to receive regular updates about the latest in online and blended learning and the possibilities for Washington.

###

[Reprinted from the iLearn Project blog; feature photo credit: Foto_di_Signorina]

Reports filed with the State Public Disclosure Commission through April show Republican candidate for Washington State Governor Rob McKenna taking a thin lead over Democratic opponent Jay Inslee in total direct campaign contributions since the campaign began last June.

The PDC reports filed by each campaign show $4.4 million in overall direct contributions raised for McKenna compared with $4.3 million for Inslee.

In April alone—the first full month Inslee did not have his day job in Congress and could commit full time to his gubernatorial campaign—McKenna raised just over $590,000 against only $398,000 for Inslee. The disparity underscored by the fact that McKenna was only able to take contributions from April 12 onward after the state Legislature ended its third special session and the ban on fundraising by state officials lifted.

The Inslee campaign supplemented its campaign purse in April with a $75,000 transfer from the State Democratic Party, bringing the combined total to $605,000 for all such transfers during the current election cycle. Other transfers from Democratic Party county and legislative district organizations brings the total to almost $800,000.

“You have wonder when State Democratic Party donors are going to stop throwing good money after bad now that they have propped Congressman Inslee up with more than $800,000 in party money,” McKenna campaign communications director Charles McCray III said yesterday. “The truth is Rob McKenna raised more for his gubernatorial campaign in 19 days than Mr. Inslee has generated in any month since he entered the race.  That statistic tells you how this race is truly going.”

McKenna’s campaign finance advantage continues in spite of a 100-day handicap for Inslee due to the prohibition on raising campaign dollars during legislative session, a law that non-state officeholders are exempt from having to comply with.

Through the end of April, Inslee had logged 301 days on the campaign trail compared to 326 for McKenna, but with 125 days of legislative session, Inslee nets a potential advantage of 100 fundraising days but has yielded a lower overall take from his passing of the hat.

Based on our calculations from the PDC data, the average contribution rate to the McKenna campaign is just over $22,000 per day, while Inslee’s pace is significantly slower at just under $13,600 per day.

In March, we estimated that based on the speed differential of these two political racehorses, Inslee’s lead in overall dollars (the amount that includes transfers from the state party) might last through mid-June at which time McKenna would slingshot past. With the new figures, it seems reasonable to think that timeline could be accelerated.

The sluggish appearance of the Inslee campaign’s fundraising may be improved somewhat by the veneer of party transfusions, but PDC reports also show that the Inslee campaign is monopolizing its party’s funds. (The $75,000 transfer on the last day of April left the State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz with only several thousand dollars in his non-exempt account.)

But allowing the Inslee campaign to use the party account as its private rainy day fund could have negative implications for Democratic races outside of the campaign to retain the governor’s seat.

Down the ticket from the gubernatorial ballot, Democrats will be on defense in as 25 key races in the state House and Senate, including a number of open seats in Western Washington.

State Republicans aim to capitalize on those opportunities and an equalized playing field created by last year’s redistricting process, and the leadership in Olympia has been very busy in recent months, quietly recruiting an impressive list of legislative candidates to run in targeted Western Washington districts. Their initiative marries with Washington State Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wilbur’s “12 in ‘12” push to win back the governor’s seat and majorities in both houses of the state Legislature.

So far, McKenna has not had to tap the WSRP bank for any kind of assistance, a windfall of sorts should Wilbur be inclined (and financed) to support legislative candidates what many Republicans see as a goal critical to McKenna’s eventual success should he be elected governor, the resetting of the agenda in Olympia.

On the other hand, Inslee is already a drain on his party’s finances. Is there symbolism for Washington State voters to take away from the comparison? It’s so obvious if it was a dog it would have already jumped up and bit you.

###

Using pithy, common sense questions, the film explores the faulty assumptions that drive public education and lead to the fact that, “Too many of our kids aren’t graduating ready to go to college. Or enter the workplace. Or give back to their community. They are not keeping up with their global counterparts.”

They also propose a simple process for expanding learning opportunities: “Try new things. Measure results. Adjust. Repeat … Because if we’re not moving forward we’re actually going backward.”

Watch the video to get inspired then browse the links below for articles and examples of how schools and individuals are expanding learning opportunities.

• Experts Outline Mobile Learning Tips, eSchoolNews.com
• Learning Resources!, iLearn Project’s page of online tools and resources
• The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning, Innosight Institute
• Education 2.0: A Catalog of Innovation, iLearn Project
• KIPP Empower Academy: Truly Empowering Kindergartners Through Blended Learning, iLearn Project
• Ryan Fox: School to the Beat of his own Drum, iLearn Project
• Automating AND Humanizing Education for the First Time in History, Getting Smart.com
• Why Gamification is Changing the Face of 21st Century Eductation, DigitalTrends.com

###

[Reprinted from the iLearn Project blog]

Specifically, on the issue of how to create jobs, Rob McKenna and Jay Inslee have laid out their plans to cure the state’s unemployment problem—a front and center problem of drastically reducing the rate of joblessness that still runs above the national average for the state as a whole and is in the double digits in most of the areas outside the Greater Puget Sound basin.

Each candidate has plotted a course they claim will create jobs, but the paths they would take lead in opposite directions.

What are these opposing philosophies? Rob McKenna believes that jobs are created by the private sector, and the government’s role is to reduce the tax and regulatory hurdles that hamstring businesses that might otherwise sprint into growth and jobs. Jay Inslee believes that government creates jobs, both directly and by intervening in the private sector to encourage employers to hire in ways they would not naturally choose.

How would McKenna’s vision improve the employment picture in Washington State? By reforming the state’s business and occupation tax, unemployment insurance, and worker’s compensation, as well as pruning the thicket-like maze of regulations that make Washington State one of the most expensive places to do business, McKenna’s plan—quite simply—aims to make is easier to do business. Removing the disincentives currently associated with hiring and expansion, and lowering the cost of doing business is, in McKenna’s view, all that is needed to spur the economy into a burst of job creation. McKenna’s call to get rid of inefficient or obsolete tax credits will be balanced in the budget by a smaller, more efficient state government.

In the other world, the one envisioned by Jay Inslee, the state would encourage and manage growth only in industries of the government’s choosing (mainly high-tech and aerospace) through the use of tax credits and low-interest loans. Inslee’s decisions to support selected industries would be implemented by new agencies tasked to recruit new businesses into the state, and a business and occupation tax credit would be available to firms after new jobs are created. Inslee’s proposal for paying for the new initiatives is a combination of tax reform, eliminating exemptions and closing loopholes from the current system.

For anyone who believes in the free market, the choice is obvious. If you want more jobs, make jobs less expensive to create. Since Washington State currently discourages the hiring of new employees by having high worker’s comp premiums, unemployment taxes, health insurance mandates, a regressive business and occupation tax system and excessive regulations, to encourage companies to hire we just need the state to stop doing this.

Jay Inslee’s approach will do nothing to reduce the costs of hiring employees that come from state taxes and regulations. If anything, Inslee’s plan seems to add yet another layer of government interference.

Worse yet are Inslee’s plans to offer tax credit incentives to attract new businesses. In order to compete with other more cost-efficient business-friendly states, Washington would need to rebate far more in taxes to compensate for our already high business taxation burden. The cost of giving a tax incentive to out-of-state businesses is then transferred to all of the businesses already here, companies that will not get a “sweetheart deal.” Inslee appears to propose that these new tax credits would be offset by eliminating older tax credits; replacing old preferences with new preferences. I fail to see how jobs are created by giving money to one group of business that has to be taken from another group of businesses.

Inslee’s jobs plan illustrates the danger of putting the government in charge of picking winners and losers. (Actually, logic tells us that government almost always picks losers—winners don’t require government subsidies.) The core problem—creating jobs—is not addressed by Inslee’s plan and the end result will be a government that grows larger and more corrupt by trading influence and favors.

###

[feature photo credit: coreycam]

Survey of Top Execs Reveals Democratic States Not Perceived as Business Friendly, While Republican States Receive Good Marks

According to an annual survey of 650 business leaders conducted by Chief Executive—a magazine for CEOs of U.S. companies—Washington State ranks 37th out of U.S. states as a place to do business, a ranking that saw the Evergreen State drop three places since last year.

(See the complete rankings and supporting data in the article at Chief Executive.)

Chief Executive asked business leaders to grade each state on its tax and regulation policy, the quality of its workforce and its living environment.

On the specific grade for taxes and regulation—key legs of successful business posture—Washington ranked 34th, and each of Washington’s candidates for governor will be working hard to convince voters this fall that they alone can begin to bring Washington out of its current malaise.

If the results from the Chief Executive survey are any indication, Republican gubernatorial contender Rob McKenna has a real advantage when making the case that Republican ideas about free enterprise promote a pro-business climate in a state where Democratic policies tend to chill the attitude of leaders in the private sector.

We went beyond the poor individual ranking of Washington State to take a deeper look at the Chief Executive survey data, adding on a layer of information about the partisan composition of each state’s government. We found a strong correlation between the perception of a state as a good or bad place to do business and which political party is in control, and the disparity grows in relation to the control one party has.

In this case, the trends we found in the data support a belief held by many Americans—Republicans do much, much better at arranging government in a way that supports private sector growth.

To see the top-level trend, one does not need to go much further than the states at the poll’s extremes. Republican-controlled Texas held the top spot for the eighth successive year, a streak Democrat-dominated California matched only in length by coming in dead last for an astonishing eighth consecutive year.

Of the states ranked in the top 10, nine have Republican governors; in the bottom 10, seven have Democratic governors. As a group, states with Republican governors in the survey had an average ranking of 19.66. The average ranking for states with Democratic chief executives was 33.30.

An even more stunning statistic is that between 2011 and 2012, states with Republican governors bettered their Chief Executive survey rankings by a combined 30 places; those with Democratic chiefs lost 26 places.

If the phenomenon of how dangerous Democratic governors appear to be for state economies seems unreal, the effect of partisan control is exaggerated further when the degree of control one party has over state government is considered.

We took the next step to factor legislative control into our enhanced tabulation, and found that states in which Republicans have total control of the governor’s office and the legislature fared even better—the average ranking in that cohort was 18.32—than those with only a Republican governor. Comparatively, states in which Democrats held solid control of government averaged 38.41, even worse than when only the governor’s office was in Democratic hands.

While it may be problematic to use a single survey to make conclusions about which political party is doing a better job of cultivating business and by extension jobs, the Chief Executive rankings represent the opinions of men and women who make their living by choosing where to do commerce and hire workers.

###

[feature photo credit: kag2u]

Well, we’re starting to see the effects of that “cost-savings” move.

This week it was announced that the Steilacoom Historical School District will not renew its contract with K12, Inc. to operate Washington Virtual Academy (WAVA).

Online public schools provide choice, customization, 21^st century learning, and more control for families, not bureaucrats.  WAVA’s closure in Steilacoom is a bad sign. Rather than moving forward in innovation and options, Washington is driving the innovators out.

Steilacoom’s history

Steilacoom was the first district in Washington to contract with K12, Inc., starting in 2004 with 25 students. As of last spring, enrollment exceeded 1,500.

According to a recent News Tribune article, only about 25 of these students live in Steilacoom. The majority use the state’s Choice Law to transfer their enrollment and take advantage of the program from wherever they live. State funding follows the student to the district providing services, making this one of the only school choices families have.

The funding debate

On the surface, it makes sense that online public schools would cost less than traditional public schools: no facilities, no buses, no food service, etc. So they should get less money, right? It’s not that simple.

First, prior to the funding cut of 2011, students enrolled in online schools were already receiving less funding. Including building, bus, facilities, and so forth, traditional public schools receive roughly $12,000 per pupil. Online public schools typically receive only the Basic Education Allocation—roughly  $5,000, now reduced by 15 percent. Meanwhile, they have the same staffing costs and unique technology costs.

The News Tribune reports:

“Former state representative Gigi Talcott of Tacoma, coordinator for Washington Families For Online Learning, said state funding cuts aimed at online programs have proven painful. She said school districts now get about $4,200 per student in state funding for online students – about $1,000 less per pupil than they get in basic education and materials funding for traditional students.

“That’s not enough to run a high-quality program,” she said.

Knowing this to be the case, in 2011 we cautioned legislators that making this cut would not save the state money since online schools might be forced to close and students would likely return to traditional public schools, costing the state even more. Cuts were absolutely necessary in the 2011 session, but this cut didn’t make sense—for students or financially.

With Steilacoom’s closure of WAVA, we’re seeing our predictions begin to unfold.

Fortunately, Steilacoom isn’t the only district to contract with K12. Using the same Choice Law, students can enroll in WAVA through the Omak School District.

Still, Steilacoom’s decision doesn’t bode well for the dozens of other districts that offer online programs.

The good news is that options do still exist, and a dedicated group of online learning families are hard at work to protect those choices.

The Washington Families for Online Learning Coalition is currently suing the state for restoration of full BEA funding for online students. They are arguing that it is unconstitutional to reduce state funding for one subset of public school students.

###

[Reprinted from the iLearn Project blog; feature photo credit: 19melissa68]

The suit claims that McKenna’s involvement in the multistate legal challenge to the national health care law commonly known as Obamacare now before the U.S. Supreme Court has been unethical because of the plaintiffs’ opinion that the law contains provisions that are beneficial to state residents.

Leading the legal team for the plaintiffs is Seattle attorney Knoll Lowney, notable for having filed mid-election lawsuits against Republican candidates such as Dino Rossi in 2008 and Mike Magavick in 2006.

State Republican Party Chair Kirby Wilbur did not pull any punches in an official statement released Thursday afternoon, charging that political motivations were the sole basis for the suit.

“Congressman Inslee and his extreme allies have officially thrown in the towel on any new ideas for this campaign,” said Wilbur. “It seems a little early for Inslee to resort to calling in that noted loser of lawsuits Knoll Lowney, to make one of his typically dubious legal claims against a Republican candidate, but since Inslee doesn’t have any positive solutions for the state, I guess he has to resort to scurrilous partisan attacks.”

There is merit to Wilbur’s charge. Like any good nuisance suit, even a quick attempt at tracing the merits and cause of action leaves one in knots.

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs argue that, because they may personally benefit in some ways from the national health care law, the challenge to the law does harm, a line of reasoning which skips blithely past the question of whether the law that extends said benefit is constitutionally legitimate, the very question that McKenna’s lawsuit seeks to answer.

Furthermore, the case description on the website of Smith & Lowney is little more than a retread of recent liberal talking points:

Other plaintiffs depend upon the ACA for comprehensive birth control coverage, and their right to obtain contraception and other preventative care without cost-sharing. Without the ACA, the plaintiffs and women across the state will have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for birth control and preventative care which they can receive for free under the ACA.

Furthermore, Smith & Lowney’s question and answer page for the suit suggests that McKenna’s actions are illegitimate strictly because of his gender, an implied argument that men should be deprived of having a voice on issues regarding women’s health care:

Moreover, thirteen male attorneys general* lack moral standing to decide the fate of women’s health care.

Of course, the implied advocacy for gender segregation in politics obscures some flagrant cherry-picking on the subject of when male opinions about public policy are permissible and when they are not.

Between the votes of hundreds of male Democrats in Congress and Pres. Barack Obama (male) signing the bill they passed into law, the Obamacare law itself was a decision to decide the fate of the health care of millions of Americans, women included. Does the plaintiffs’ claim that men do not have “moral standing” whenever public policy and women’s issues intersect create a paradox in which Obamacare itself is invalid?

Of course not. The lawsuit filed today does not challenge the moral standing of those men, the ones who decide in favor of costly, coerced solutions, only the one who is running as a Republican for Washington State Governor and seeks to unravel the entire mess.

###

Despite wanting to add to the minuscule $54 million unrestricted ending fund balance left by lawmakers, Governor Gregoire’s vetoes today actually reduced state reserves by $8 million. This means the unrestricted ending fund balance rests at $46 million with another $265 million in the constitutionally protected budget reserve account. Since the budget reserve account requires a vote of lawmakers to access (supermajority or simple majority if employment growth is less the 1%) the immediate flexibility built in the budget to avoid another special session or across-the-board cuts is only $46 million out of a $31.1 billion budget.

Even that $46 million amount is a charitable description when realizing it occurs based on the assumption of $120 million in reversions and reliance on a $238 million accounting change.

2011-13 Balance Sheet With Accounting Change and Anticipated Reversions

Total Resources = $31.175 billion (includes $238 million accounting change)
Total Spending = $31.129 billion (includes $120 million in reversions)
Unrestricted ending fund balance = $46 million

2011-13 Balance Sheet Without Accounting Change or Anticipated Reversions

Total Resources = $30.937 billion
Total Spending = $31.249 billion
Unrestricted ending fund balance = negative $312 million

Based on the fact we still have the June, September and November revenue forecasts to go before lawmakers are scheduled to return next January, there are three possible scenarios:

1. Economic recovery – proving lawmakers’ next stop should be Vegas to take advantage of their hot streak;
2. Governor ordered across-the-board cuts to deal with a drop in revenue; or
3. Yet another special session to balance the budget.

For those hoping for scenario number one, do you feel lucky?

###

[Reprinted from the Washington Policy Center blog; feature photo credit: snbphotography]

Wealthy men like Warren Buffett are held up as examples of how the rich should pay more taxes, when in reality he is a better example of how to use the tax code to your benefit.

Warren Buffett amassed his huge fortune in part by taking advantage of the financial damage caused to solid family-owned corporations by inheritance taxes, and has kept it largely untaxed by taking his income only through a limited amount of capital gains, and deferring the rest of his profits. If he was truly interested in paying more taxes, his corporation wouldn’t be fighting the IRS claim that they owe a billion dollars in back taxes.

The Chinese have an old saying that clever laws make clever criminals. It is certainly true that our current immense tax code makes for clever tax attorneys. Where does this byzantine collection of tax breaks and loopholes originate? They are created by legislatures eager to curry favor with their voters by attracting and retaining businesses in their area. At what point does a tax break designed to promote economic growth become a loophole for tax evaders?

What is inescapable is the fact that governments are in competition for corporations, both between the states and internationally. There are very real benefits to the people of a community to having a large corporation locate there. Capital investment and good paying jobs raises the standard of living throughout the community. Likewise, government at all levels shares in the prosperity, with a higher tax base and corresponding taxes.

In a free market, just as private sector businesses compete for customers by offering better prices and services, so must governments compete for businesses (and individuals as well). The ultimate check on a government’s unrestrained taxes and regulations is to just move somewhere else (see California and New York as examples). But for some, there is a shortcut to government being an efficient competitor; pass laws restricting the rights of corporations to operate freely.

An example of this is the proposed Seattle Initiative 103. The initiative grandly promises to be a “community bill of rights” for the city: to end corporate personhood, limit corporate election spending and lobbying, and outline worker’s rights. Unconstitutional on its face, this initiative seeks to restrict the rights of corporations, subordinating them to governmental control.

What this illustrates best is a fundamental political difference that exists today. America has historically been a place where individuals could band together and form a corporation, a commercial venture whose sole purpose is to profit its members. This is entirely appropriate; no one would run a small business year after year that didn’t pay you for your effort; a corporation that doesn’t make profits is no different. But today’s liberals believe that corporations must be re-purposed as a captive source of tax revenues, jobs, health benefits and community charity. While clothed in noble intentions, what that view translates to is this: Corporations (and the people that they represent) exist only to further the state’s ends. What they earn belongs to the government, which then determines what they are “allowed” to keep.

This is why our Constitution protects corporations as it does individuals; if you have no right to your collective labor, you have no right to your individual labor. What is another word for a person who has been stripped of the right to reap the reward from their own labor? Slave.

###

As noted by this 2004 press release from Governor Gary Locke announcing the first CBAs agreed to under the 2002 law, prior to its passage the Legislature determined state employee compensation via the budget process:

“This year’s contract negotiations mark the first time in state history that unions have been able to bargain with the state for wages and benefits. The new personnel reform law passed by the Legislature in 2002 expanded the state’s collective bargaining activities to include wages and benefits. In the past, the Legislature unilaterally set those terms.”

Here is a Seattle Times editorial discussing what should happen with the 2013-15 negotiations:

“. . . Gregoire’s team is negotiating contracts that will bind her successor. For the sake of the next governor, and for Washington taxpayers who are paying for benefits better than their own, we hope she drives a shrewder bargain. After four years, it should be clear the economy has permanently reset. State contracts should complete that adjustment, as most of their private counterparts have done. Another thing. The collective-bargaining law of 2002 says the Legislature can vote the contracts down. It never has dared do so. Legislators have avoided that choice by burying the contract provisions in budget bills.

From now on, contract provisions should be in a separate bill, with hearings, debates and recorded votes. That is about accountability to all the state’s citizens. Also, the 2002 law appoints legislative leaders to a Joint Select Committee on Employee Relations and says the governor’s negotiators ‘must consult’ with it. So far, ‘must consult’ has meant sending advisory emails. That committee should be convened — for the first time — to set the Legislature’s expectations. The Legislature needs to take back a larger role in setting state employee pay. If this process cannot create contracts the state can afford, the Legislature should repeal the collective-bargaining law and take back the full authority to set state employee pay.”

The Columbian editorial board also weighs in:

“Washingtonians might deduce that their governor will drive a hard bargain this week when she begins negotiations with state-worker unions. After all, Chris Gregoire has announced she will retire after two terms in January, and with an Oct. 1 deadline for finalizing the state’s 2013-2015 collective bargaining agreements, she now claims special clout as a lame duck: No re-election pressure during negotiations, and no apprehension about dealing with unions after her successor takes office. That might be conventional wisdom, but we’re not so confident the taxpayers’ best interests will prevail at the bargaining table.

. . . On many other matters during her two terms, Gov. Gregoire has been as demanding, almost ruthless, as she has been eloquent. At this new bargaining table — which will determine state-worker compensation and benefits for two years after she leaves office — the governor won’t have to worry about politics. She should flex that new power by focusing less on state workers and more on taxpayers.”

As we noted in the 4th Edition of our Policy Guide for Washington State, this process should ultimately be changed so that lawmakers have more say in these appropriation decisions:

“State collective bargaining law prevents the legislature, and the public, from knowing the process that determines employment contract costs. The current system undermines transparency and public accountability for the tax dollars being spent through the state payroll.

Under the 2002 Civil Service Reform Act, the legislature can only vote ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ with no amendments or other changes, to a contract negotiated secretly by the governor and union officials. As a result, state unions no longer have their priorities weighed equally with other special interest groups during the normal legislative budget process. Instead, union executives now negotiate directly with the governor, while lawmakers only have the opportunity to say yes or no to the entire contract. Lawmakers cannot make any changes.

To put the legislature back in charge of the budget so spending can be prioritized to serve the public interest, the 2002 collective bargaining law should be repealed and replaced with something similar to the policy Indiana adopted in 2005. When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels took office in 2005 he issued an executive order that, in effect, ended secret state negotiations with unions . . .

Unions exist to fight for their members, not to advocate for policy that is in the best interest of taxpayers. This why it is incumbent on the legislature to have the authority to weigh all spending requests equally in the context of the priorities of all taxpayers and citizens and not be cut out of budget decisions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

The legislature should reassert its authority over state employment policy to ensure greater public accountability and transparency. This would help advance improvements that reduce costs while rewarding the excellent work of state employees.”

Additional Information
Gregoire will set terms of 2013-15 state union contracts

###

[Reprinted from the Washington Policy Center blog; feature photo credit: king of monks]

Driscoll—a great-great grandson of Frederick Weyerhauser who founded the Weyerhauser Company in 1901—becomes the latest Republican to throw his hat into the ring in an election that took on new significance for the GOP after 18-term Democratic incumbent Norm Dicks announced last month that he would not seek re-election at the end of his current term.

Currently, Derek Kilmer is running as the sole Democratic heir apparent for Dicks’ congressional seat, and one of the more exciting aspects of Driscoll’s candidacy is his pledge to plant $500,000 of his own money into the campaign, a booster shot of early cash that could help him catch up after getting in the race this close to the filing deadline.

vital seed in a race that is getting increasing attention from Republicans in Washington State and Washington, D.C.

Here is the text of Driscoll’s official announcement:

TACOMA, WA — Bill Driscoll, a Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, a leader in the forest products industry, and a lifelong Republican, today announced his candidacy for Congress in Washington’s 6th District.

“Career politicians have had their chance and failed,” said Driscoll.  “It’s time for new leaders who’ll rise above partisan bickering and demand results.”

In 2006 Driscoll set aside his business career, volunteered to rejoin the U.S. Marine Corps, and served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.  18 Years after leaving the Corps, Bill chose to put his uniform back on because he saw the toll repeated long deployments were taking on the men and women of our armed forces, and he knew he could help.

This same commitment to step up and serve is why Bill Driscoll is running for Congress.

“In Congress, I will focus on real job growth, balancing the federal budget, providing a strong national defense, and keeping our promises to those who’ve served our country in uniform,” said Driscoll.  “Politicians talk about these issues all the time, but I learned in business and the military that results are what matter.”

Driscoll explained his decision to invest some of his own money in his campaign.

“Senator Kilmer has a head start in this race.  By the end of March he had already raised more than $350,000 in special interest money, and at that rate we estimate that he’s approaching half a million dollars by now,” said Driscoll.  “I’m investing $500,000 in my campaign, which should bring us even with Senator Kilmer.  The rest of my campaign will be funded by individual donations, but now that we’re on equal footing let the best candidate win.”

The great great grandson of Frederick Weyerhaeuser who founded the Weyerhaeuser company in 1901, Bill is proud to have worked in the company and other forest products firms over the last 20 years.

Bill and his wife Lisa live in Tacoma.  Lisa is a professor at University of Washington Tacoma, specializing in China and teaching in the Urban Studies Program as well as serving as Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Community Engagement.  The couple has two children, John Saul age three and Anna, almost 3 months old.

The campaign website is www.electbilldriscoll.org.

###

On Tuesday, the Democratic stalking morphed into full-on bushwhackery when Kendra Obom—a YMCA worker and Democratic Party volunteer—pounced on McKenna as he exited a downtown Seattle hotel after attending a fisheries conference.

Holding a digital recording device and refusing to identify herself, Obom asked McKenna to give his position on the Reproductive Parity Act, a piece of legislation that forces insurers to cover abortion as long as they also want to continue covering maternity care.

Right away, McKenna asked Obom to stop recording and suggested that she was trying to ambush him, but Obom pursued. From that point McKenna’s posture toward her as she followed him down what appears to be Fifth Avenue became tense, then tenser and then downright surly, culminating in his telling Obom to “go get a job.”

In all fairness, it was not one of the candidate’s finest moments and Democrats have seized upon the mistake by popping the cork on a two-day fiesta of gleeful McKenna-bashing. Come to think of it, can anyone really blame Democrats for taking a few days to vaporize the Republican frontrunner’s piñata because he lost his cool, going all the way from calm to seriously peeved? Since its official launch last summer, the Inslee campaign has been at its best a sleeper and at its worst a train wreck. Amid months of gloom and lowered expectations about Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Jay Inslee, a moment of adulation and glee has to be savored in the same way a starving person savors a few grains of rice.

Whether lurching from forward to reverse several times on whether to accept a debate invitation from the Association of Washington Business, or mistiming his decision to resign from Congress so badly that it triggered a confusing $1 million special election, or holding fundraisers with several of the Democratic Party’s most notable womanizers (dirtbag number one and dirtbag number two), or attempting to conduct his campaign’s finances in such a questionable way that even the Associated Press could not avoid writing about it, or even—and this goes way back—to holding his campaign kickoff last June in the South Lake Union offices of Targeted Growth, Inc., a firm whose lobbyists had also donated significant amounts to Inslee’s congressional campaigns, Campaign Inslee has had at least its fair share of credibility-bruising setbacks.

Despite the seductive political gains struggling politicians and political parties can achieve by using ambush tactics to generate viral-worthy material, good public policy is the only real casualty of this brand of warfare.

By framing public debate with sloganeering and street theatrics, some very, very, very important nuances tend to be ignored. In the case of Obom’s purported cause of concern—the Reproductive Parity Act—on the question of whether a new government mandate on insurers to provide abortion coverage and maternity coverage (or provide neither), there are serious implications to be discussed and the forum of gotcha street journalism does not provide for such discourse.

Had Obom identified herself, asked for a moment of the candidate’s time and generally behaved like a civilized person, she might have received what she was asking for, a statement of the candidate’s position on the legislation like the one McKenna released yesterday:

I support our existing, voter-approved state law which guarantees women access to insurance coverage for reproductive healthcare. I do not support changing the law in a way that could put federal funding of women’s healthcare at risk. Supporters of changes to our existing state law evidently believe that the new federal healthcare law will jeopardize women’s access to health insurance which covers reproductive healthcare; if true, that would be an unfortunate consequence of a massive bill which few in Congress bothered to read before voting on it.

Though McKenna’s position may be one Obom and most liberal Democrats do not like or agree with, it nonetheless expresses a thorough assessment of the legal and fiscal realities of a radical legislative maneuver. It is a mature response to a complex question.

Not that McKenna’s statement does not still leave many stem issues from the Reproductive Parity Act uncovered. It does not speak to the First Amendment implications of the Reproductive Parity Act in the interference of rights of religious institutions and individuals to refrain from activities that would conflict with their faith. Neither does it open a dialogue about whether giving insurers an abortion coverage ultimatum could, in some cases, create an incentive to drop costly maternity coverage if premium increases resulting from the new mandates were projected to lose policyholders.

I’ll go out on a limb to suggest that the best way to flesh out details of McKenna’s thoughts on those branch issues will not be to anonymously thrust an iPhone under his chin and begin a streetside interrogation.

Furthermore, despite its gray areas, McKenna’s position still comes across as far more thoughtful than Inslee’s which represents little more than a recitation of Democratic party doctrine on abortion for more than two decades.

In contrast, McKenna’s position disdains demagoguery and by doing so conveys leadership. In that way, the Democratic attempt to frame McKenna as an extremist is an ironic failure, an episode of engineered chaos that produced a moment of personal frustration, not a display of ideological extremism.

###

Operating Budget Spending History
(Dollars in Millions)

*Near General Fund State plus Opportunity Pathways account
**Budgeted amount
Source: www.fiscal.wa.gov

We’ll have a full analysis of the updated 2011-13 budget and various structural reforms available in the coming weeks.

Additional Information

Editorial wrap up of budget agreement
Evolution of the 2012 supplemental budget
Budget balance sheet has lawmakers rooting for Spain and increased oil supply
From near last to almost first on state balanced budget requirement
Impact of pension reform deal
Summary of K-12 health insurance bill

###

[Reprinted from the Washington Policy Center blog; feature photo credit: Heartlover1717]

Though the 2011-13 balance sheet shows total spending of $31.121 billion, the actual budgeted authority for agency spending is $31.241 billion. This is because the 2011-13 balance sheet assumes $120 million in reversions based on historical experience of actual agency spending, meaning the Legislature expects agencies will under spend their budgeted authority resulting in expected spending of $31.121 billion.

Without the anticipated $120 million in reversions, the already tenuous 2011-13 unrestricted ending fund balance would be upside down by $66 million (including the $238 million realized by an accounting change).

2011-13 Balance Sheet With Accounting Change and Anticipated Reversions

Total Resources = $31.175 billion (includes $238 million accounting change)
Total Spending = $31.121 billion (includes $120 million in reversions)
Unrestricted ending fund balance = $54 million

2011-13 Balance Sheet Without Accounting Change or Anticipated Reversions

Total Resources = $30.937 billion
Total Spending = $31.241 billion
Unrestricted ending fund balance = negative $304 million

As previously mentioned, the assumption of $120 million in reversions by lawmakers is not merely wishful thinking but instead reflects the historical experience of the past 15 years. Though reversions occur yearly, lawmakers typically don’t book anticipated reversions on the balance sheet. This is because in the past these funds were automatically transferred to dedicated accounts. A change made via the budget this year (HB 2127 – Section 709) will now keep these funds in the Near General Fund. Here are the actual agency reversions since Fiscal Year 1997 according to the Office of Financial Management (all dollars in millions):

• FY 97 – $62
• FY 98 – $42
• FY 99 – $55
• FY 00 – $25
• FY 01 – $23
• FY 02 – $14
• FY 03 – $36
• FY 04 – $18
• FY 05 – $43
• FY 06 – $37
• FY 07 – $79
• FY 08 – $83
• FY 09 – $111
• FY 10 – $83
• FY 11 – $105

15-year Fiscal Year Average = $54 million

The majority of reversions in the past tended to happen in the Department of Social and Health Services and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Higher education agencies (universities) tend to spend 100% of their budgeted authority. The 2011-13 budget doesn’t specify where these reversions are expected to occur but is based on the anticipated total amount statewide.

Governor Gregoire is expected to take action on the budget on May 2. She plans to issue several vetoes in an effort to increase the paltry $54 million unrestricted ending fund balance.

###

[Reprinted from the Washington Policy Center blog]

As illustrated by the less than ideal path SB 5940 took to final passage, those impacted by the requirements of the bill are still trying to understand its impact, including one legislative committee (JLARC) that for the first time will have the power to award grants.

Here is a description from the bill report on why changes to K-12 health insurance became an issue during 2012:

“In 2010 the State Auditor’s Office conducted a performance review of the public school employees’ health benefits purchased by 295 school districts. The report became available to legislators during the 2011 legislative session, and included three main recommendations: streamline the benefits array of school employees to improve efficiency, transparency, and stability; standardize coverage levels for more affordable and equitable health care benefits; and reduce costs by restructuring the health benefits array. Legislation passed in the 2011 special session (section 213 of the state budget) directed the Health Care Authority (HCA) to develop a proposal for consolidating the purchase of school district benefits to improve administrative efficiency, transparency, and equity. The HCA report delivered in December identified that over $1 billion in public funds is spent each year on school employee benefits for 109,000 employees and the additional 94,000 dependents that are enrolled in benefits.

The state provides funding to school districts to support the purchase of health benefits for employees. For the 2011-13 fiscal biennium, the state provides $768 per full-time equivalent employee (FTE). The amount of the school funding rate is commonly passed through as an allocation to each school district employee through bargaining agreements. In addition, some school districts have, in some instances, bargained local funds that are added to the state allocation.

. . . Recent studies indicate that significantly more than 1,000 funding pools are operated in Washington’s 295 school districts. Employee premiums may vary significantly between districts and funding pools. There is also substantial variation in the share of the costs employees pay between those insuring only themselves, and those insuring families. Full-time school district employees that are insuring only themselves on average pay about 4 percent of the cost of benefits, while those full-time school district employees that insure their families on average pay about 43 percent of the cost.

During study of the school district health benefit system in 2011, the HCA stated that it was unable to collect some of the needed demographic, payroll, and benefits data. The HCA identified a number of the obstacles to data collection that it found and would need to be dealt with to enable analysis of the effectiveness of the administration and purchasing systems employed by districts. Among the obstacles to data transparency identified were (1) variations in district budget practices; (2) contracts with third party administrators that made it difficult to assess administrative costs; and (3) contracts with benefits carriers which allow the carriers to withhold information about the make-up of premiums, including components of administrative fees, and claims information at the school district, employee bargaining group, or individual member level.”

Among the changes made by SB 5940 to address this:

“School districts must modify their benefits for employees to require every employee to pay a minimum premium for the medical benefit coverage, subject to collective bargaining, and ensure that employees selecting a richer benefit plan pay a higher premium. School districts offering medical, vision, and dental benefits must (1) offer a high deductible health plan option with a health savings account similar to that required for state employees; (2) make progress toward employee premiums for full family coverage that are not more than three times the premiums for employees purchasing single coverage, unless a different target is developed in future reports; and (3) offer employees at least one comprehensive health benefit plan in which the employee share of the premium for a full-time employee does not exceed the share of premiums paid by state employees (approximately 15 percent). All school district contracts must be held to responsible procurement or contracting standards, and school districts must make progress on promoting health care innovations, cost savings, and reduced administrative costs.”

The stick to bring compliance with these requirements is found in Section 3 (9) of the bill:

“Upon notification from the office of the insurance commissioner of a school district’s substantial noncompliance with the data reporting requirements of RCW 28A.400.275, and the failure is due to the action or inaction of the school district, and if the noncompliance has occurred for two reporting periods, the superintendent is authorized and required to limit the school district’s authority provided in subsection (1) of this section regarding employee health benefits to the provision of health benefit coverage provided by the state health care authority.”

This means that two straight years of non-compliance with the new transparency reporting requirements will result in that school district’s employees being placed in the state health care system.

The carrot is found in Section 7 (4) of the bill:

“(a) In the 2015-2016 school year, the joint committee shall determine which school districts have met the requirements of RCW 28A.400.350 (5) and (6), and shall rank order these districts from highest to lowest in term of their performance in meeting the requirements.

(b) The joint committee shall then allocate performance grants to the highest performing districts from a performance fund of five million dollars appropriated by the legislature for this purpose. Performance grants shall be used by school districts only to reduce employee health insurance copayments and deductibles. In determining the number of school districts to receive awards, the joint committee must consider the impact of the award on district employee copayments and deductibles in such a manner that the award amounts have a meaningful impact.”

The “joint committee” referenced is the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC). As the Legislature’s auditor, JLARC has never before been authorized to award public funds. The authority granted by Section 7 (4) of SB 5490 is a new role for JLARC as an awarder of the performance grants. JLARC is still trying to determine how this role will work and not compromise its independence as an auditor. Not surprisingly, JLARC was not consulted about this new role since it was added to the bill after 2 a.m. on the morning the bill was adopted as noted below.

Also of note about this section is the requirement for a future Legislature to appropriate the $5 million that will be used by JLARC in 2015 to award the grants with.

Here is video of Governor Gregoire noting that the final version of SB 5940 that was voted on early the morning of April 11 wasn’t even written until sometime after 2 a.m. that morning:

(click here for video)

This could explain why JLARC wasn’t consulted first about its new authority to award grants and is still trying to work through how that process will be implemented.

Also, here is video of the 4 a.m. April 11 Senate floor debate on SB 5940 where Sen. McAuliffe complained about the lack of transparency on the new language prior to final passage:

(click here for video)

It is ironic that a bill focused on improving the transparency of K-12 health insurance was enacted in such a nontransparent way.

###

[Reprinted from the Washington Policy Center blog; feature photo credit: thanker212]

According to the bill report for HB 1268 (2002):

“When negotiating collective bargaining agreements, the Governor must consult with the new Joint Select Committee on Employee Relations. Collective bargaining agreements may not exceed one fiscal biennium, must be submitted to the Office of Financial Management by October 1, and must be submitted to the Legislature as part of the Governor’s budget proposal. The Legislature must accept or reject the request for funds necessary to implement the agreements as a whole. If a significant revenue shortfall occurs, as declared by either the Governor or the Legislature, modifications to the agreements must be negotiated. The terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement remain in effect until a new agreement is negotiated, not to exceed one year. After one year, the employer may unilaterally implement according to law.”

Here is the requirement in Sec. 302 (5) of HB 1268 concerning the Joint Select Committee on Employee Relations:

“. . . The governor shall periodically consult with the committee regarding appropriations necessary to implement the compensation and fringe benefit provisions in the master collective bargaining agreements, and upon completion of negotiations, advise the committee on the elements of the agreements and on any legislation necessary to implement the agreements.”

Despite this directive, the Joint Select Committee on Employment Relations has never met and thus not been consulted by the Governor on the CBAs.

So what does this all mean for the next Governor? Short of the new contracts being declared financially unfeasible by OFM after the November revenue forecast, the only shot a Governor Inslee or McKenna will have at changing the terms of the 2013-15 CBA will be if the Legislature rejects them. One neat trick on that scenario, the CBAs have never been submitted to the Legislature as a separate document for an up or down vote. Instead they have been rolled into the budget for final approval (note sections 901-911 in HB 2127).

Some lawmakers frustrated by this limited option introduced SB 5870 in 2011 to reject the terms of the CBA separate from the budget vote but the bill did not receive a hearing. As noted by the bill digest for SB 5870:

“Rejects the governor’s request for funds necessary to implement the compensation and fringe benefit provisions of all collective bargaining agreements agreed to by the governor prior to March 1, 2011, for the 2011-2013 fiscal biennium. Encourages the parties to the collective bargaining agreements to reconvene to reach an agreement that takes into account the legislature’s concerns and better recognizes the state’s fiscal situation.”

Based on the current procedures for determining the state’s CBA with employee unions, Congressman Inslee and Attorney General McKenna may want to start whispering their priorities to Gregoire now or be prepared to live under the terms of whatever deal she agrees to.

As we noted in the 4th Edition of our Policy Guide for Washington State, this process should ultimately be changed so that lawmakers have more say in these appropriation decisions:

“State collective bargaining law prevents the legislature, and the public, from knowing the process that determines employment contract costs. The current system undermines transparency and public accountability for the tax dollars being spent through the state payroll.

Under the 2002 Civil Service Reform Act, the legislature can only vote ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ with no amendments or other changes, to a contract negotiated secretly by the governor and union officials. As a result, state unions no longer have their priorities weighed equally with other special interest groups during the normal legislative budget process. Instead, union executives now negotiate directly with the governor, while lawmakers only have the opportunity to say yes or no to the entire contract. Lawmakers cannot make any changes.

To put the legislature back in charge of the budget so spending can be prioritized to serve the public interest, the 2002 collective bargaining law should be repealed and replaced with something similar to the policy Indiana adopted in 2005. When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels took office in 2005 he issued an executive order that, in effect, ended secret state negotiations with unions . . .

Unions exist to fight for their members, not to advocate for policy that is in the best interest of taxpayers. This why it is incumbent on the legislature to have the authority to weigh all spending requests equally in the context of the priorities of all taxpayers and citizens and not be cut out of budget decisions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

The legislature should reassert its authority over state employment policy to ensure greater public accountability and transparency. This would help advance improvements that reduce costs while rewarding the excellent work of state employees.”

SB 5349 was introduced in 2011 to implement this type of policy change but it was not acted on. From the bill’s intent section:

“The legislature finds that its authority over a significant portion of the state budget has eroded since state employees began collectively bargaining with the executive branch over wages and benefits. The legislature recognizes that it is the responsibility of a union to advocate for the best interest of its membership, while it is the responsibility of the legislature to determine the best interest of the state. State employees no longer have to make their case to the legislature for additional funding for compensation packages and compete for the limited funding with other priorities. The flexibility of the legislature has been limited, as the legislature has no authority to make changes to negotiated agreements between state employees and the executive branch. In tight budget times it is clear that the legislature needs more flexibility to truly prioritize spending, and must take back its authority over state employee compensation choices. Therefore, the legislature intends to repeal the ability of state employees and other nontraditional groups to collectively bargain with the executive branch over compensation.”

An alternative reform that would have subjected public employee collective bargaining sessions to the open public meetings act (HB 2526) also was not acted on by lawmakers.

###

[Reprinted from the Washington Policy Center blog; feature photo credit: BC Gov Photos]

When Congressman Norm Dicks (D, WA-6) announced last month that he would not seek a 19^th term in the U.S. House, the tradition of whimsical speculation gave way to serious talk about a Republican gain, particularly in light of the considerable work done by Republicans during last year’s redistricting that made the 6^th Congressional District less of a Democrat stronghold.

If the GOP’s door of opportunity has truly opened, Tacoma native and Republican Jesse Young may just be the right man in the right place at the right time.

Young has been running a non-stop campaign to unseat Dicks since the 2010 election. His loss in that year’s primary did not deflect from a two and a half year mission to bring change to the district. Now that the seat is open, Young sees a unique opportunity and believes that his having overcome immense personal obstacles equips him to rise to this new challenge.

I sat down with Young for a lengthy interview and learned enough about him to know that if the road to victory runs through adverse territory, Young’s personal story of overcoming obstacles should not be underestimated. To say that Young is no stranger to being the underdog is an understatement of the first order, but he looks beyond preconceptions when charting his course for the campaign.

“You have to go all in. Go big or go home,” Young confidently told me.

During his high school years, Young’s family struggled financially. Chronic homelessness was a way of life—humbling accepting the generosity of friends in order to have a warm place to sleep was his reality. Still, Young persevered to excel academically, earning the Washington Scholar Award—a free ride scholarship to the state university of his choosing.

Opting against attending an in-state college, Young chose Notre Dame, where he earned a degree in management information systems in 1999. His education became a launching pad to lucrative work as a sought-after software engineer and business consultant, a path that leads to his current position as a senior technology consultant with Russell Investments.

Young described his private sector accomplishments as keys to his value as a candidate for high public office, the benefit of having a perspective on how laws governing businesses actually impact businesses.

“I’m tired of the ranks being permeated with people with no business experience whatsoever,” Young said. “I’m asking voters in the 6^th Congressional District to send someone to Congress who can bring back jobs of the 21^st century, and I think I’m uniquely qualified to do that.”

Along the way, Young married his high school sweetheart, Jenny, with whom he has five children—four their own, one adopted from Ethiopia, all five home-schooled. It was no surprise then that current issues in education and economic opportunity became a focal point of my conversation with Young about why he is running to become a U.S. Representative.

Young agrees that the current education system is not working and sees less federal control as a critical part of the overall solution.

“I would advocate a transition away from the Department of Education and start block granting the money back to the states,” Young answered when asked what sort of education agenda he would pursue if elected. “That’s how I’ll legislate—I believe constitutionally that’s the right thing to do.”

“There are a lot of innovative teachers here, and there are a lot of people who know how to make things happen,” Young continued.

But according to Young, education will not be the most important issue in this year’s campaign—unemployment looms large over the peninsula’s political conversation, as it has for decades since the beginning of chronic decline in the region’s timber industry.

Young asserts that the unemployment rates in Grays Harbor, Mason, Clallam and Jefferson Counties—joblessness exceeding state averages—is a serious problem that decades of Democratic representation has failed to adequately address. In Young’s view, it all comes back to making a better world for our children.

“I don’t think if you took my kids and put them back into Hilltop the way I grew up, now, that they could do what I did. I don’t think the opportunity is there, and it bothers me,” Young said.

The recent move of his own employer—Russell Investments—from Tacoma to Seattle was evidence of that shrinking opportunity as well as the failure of certain elected officials to adequately represent their constituents.

Young gives a large share of the blame to Dicks and his Democratic opponent—State Sen. Derek Kilmer (D-Gig Harbor)—for not keeping Russell Investments in Tacoma, a loss of the biggest white collar employer in the congressional district, a move Young says “impacted thousands of people and their families and decimated small business, too.”

“Tacoma could have kept [Russell Investments]… Norm Dicks could have gotten involved and tried to keep them there,” Young suggested. “[Derek Kilmer’s] on the Pierce County Economic Development Board… that would have rejuvenated Tacoma…”

Another issue Young feels is a sleeper in the race involves the Wild Olympics proposal, a plan to take another ring of land surrounding the current perimeter of the Olympic National Park and prohibit commercial activity. The plan is supported by Dicks and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) but has generated strong opposition from local residents.

“They already had to go through the spotted owl… the economy has started to rebound a little bit and now they’re saying ‘no touch’,” Young said. “I hope that Dicks and Murray continue to push it. I hope that [Kilmer] walks right into it.”

The Wild Olympics proposal may even have been enough of a wildcard on the Olympic Peninsula to have been the tipping point in Dicks’ decision to retire. Young suggested to me that Dicks’ support for the plan began to face of growing opposition from within his own party.

“With the Wild Olympics program, [Dicks] started to see that we had an immense amount of support,” Young said. “He doubled-down on it… and then local Democrats started coming out against it and he had never been put in a position where the local Democrats were saying no. People just don’t realize how important it was to the people out there.”

Young also wonders how the U.S. can expect China to stop “killing their land” in order to sustain its industrial growth if we do not demonstrate to that nation and other developing nations the ways to respectfully develop their lands for economic use.

Young sees the Wild Olympics plan as going too far, with very real and drastic national security and economic implications if the proposal is pushed through.

The areas tagged under the Wild Olympics plan contain areas for the mining of manganese, nickel, gold, copper and silver, metals that also may indicate reserves of rare earth metals crucial in both modern manufacturing and “green energy” technologies.

“With that plethora of diversity, what’s the likelihood of finding rare earth materials as well?” Young asked.

“Right now, China has over 90% ownership of all nickel mines, they have over 90% ownership of all rare earth metal mines.” Young looked me directly in the eye, then pointed to my smartphone sitting between us on the table. “What do you think would happen to our economy if that phone goes up to $5,000?”

“What’s going to happen to companies where everyone uses a laptop and now you have to cut 20% of your headcount because you can’t afford to supply them?”

If the 6^th Congressional District’s economic woes were born by ill-considered environmental policy, they could certainly be made worse by piling on more of the same, but Young’s opposition to the Wild Olympics plan goes well beyond the stock conservative reaction to federal environmental overreach and told me that he wants to “aggressively put forth a plan and start talking about how to leverage the materials in a way that honors our land.”

With the credibility to promote common sense conservationism on the campaign trail, and the real-world experience to know what he’s talking about, Young represents a real challenge to the status quo.

No wonder Dicks got out when he did.

###

Here are some of the fireworks from today’s meeting. The first video is of the Governor asking L&I why it hasn’t gotten workers’ comp medical inflation under control:

(click here for video)

The second video is of the Governor asking OMWBE (Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises) why she shouldn’t terminate its contract with the Federal Department of Transportation at its (DOT) request for poor performance:

(click here for video)

Today’s GMAP reports will be available here once posted.

Additional Information

What is GMAP?

###

[Reprinted from the Washington Policy Center blog]