<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >
<channel>
<title>The Official Weblog of EFF</title>
<description>The Official Weblog of EFF</description>
<link>http://libertylive.org/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<title>EFF urges state Supreme Court to review property assessment ruling </title><description><![CDATA[The Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Constitutional Law Center is urging the Washington Supreme Court to review a ruling from the state Court of Appeals that could affect how property taxes are assessed across the state.

In 2002 the Mason County Conservation District imposed a temporary assessment of $5.00 for all parcels one acre or larger. In 2003, a group of property owners challenged the assessment, arguing that it was an unconstitutional property tax. The group eventually won a victory at trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the assessment, calling it a regulatory fee as the money collected was used to improve water quality. The property owners are now asking the state Supreme Court to review the case.

The Freedom Foundation filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the property owners. The Court of Appeals ruling muddies the distinction between assessments, taxes, and fees, and makes it easier for municipalities to impose bogus taxes on property owners. We hope the Supreme Court accepts this case for review and rules that Mason County circumvented the constitutional restrictions on special assessments.
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:49:24 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1898</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>"Court Bullies Legislature on Basic Education Funding"</title><description><![CDATA[Yesterday a King County Superior Court Judge ruled against the state in McCleary v. State, siding with a group called the Network for Excellence in Washington’s Schools (NEWS). NEWS claimed the state is failing to fulfill its “paramount duty” to make “ample provision” for funding education. Constitutionally, school funding questions fall to the legislature. In ruling for the plaintiff in this case, Judge Erlick stepped out of the judicial role and crossed into the realm of policy. His decision confirms the need for that separation of powers.  

Aside from the egregious usurpation of policy-making, Judge Erlick’s decision is more than questionable on numerous fronts: 


    First, experts have yet to prove the relationship between increased spending and better student performance.



    Second, half or less of all education spending makes it to the classroom. Combined government spending in Washington totals more than $12,000 per student per year. Until the funding and organizational structure of our public school system is redesigned, there’s no guarantee that increased spending will do more than fund the bureaucratic establishment. 


    Third, studies have explored the negative impact of plaintiff victories on students and districts. Throwing more money into education (more appropriately, the education bureaucracy) draws attention away from underlying problems that could be responsible for low student achievement. 

Check out EFF’s commentary on funding adequacy.

Click here to read EFF’s full Press Advisory.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:02:25 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1897</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>EFF files opening brief in appeal of voter registration lawsuit</title><description><![CDATA[The Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed its opening brief in the appeal
of its challenge to
Secretary of State Sam Reed's voter registration practices. EFF sued on
behalf of voter Robert Edelman, alleging that election officials are
failing to screen ineligible, underage teens who register to vote.
Thousands of these applications have been accepted. Underage
individuals have received ballots from the elections office and
unfortunately numerous teens have illegally voted. 
&nbsp;
A Thurston County
Superior Court judge ruled
last October that the Secretary of State's procedures are adequate and haven't resulted in too many illegal votes.
EFF's appeal is before Division II of the Court of Appeals. A copy of
the brief is available here.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:34:33 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1896</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Evergreen State to have going out of business sale?</title><description><![CDATA[From the News Tribune comes&nbsp;word that students and staff at The Evergreen State College will go on strike Friday to protest budget cuts that allegedly "will negatively affect low-income students."
&nbsp;
Swell. 
&nbsp;
In the comment thread associated with the article was this astute observation: 

"Great, and when they leave lets be sure to lock and bolt the doors behind them. A few less future and present government employees will be a good first step in putting a stop to this madness..."

No complaints from this observer.
&nbsp;
The strike is sponsored by something called the Coalition for a Fair Budget. If you&nbsp;Google them, you find that organizations with this name are all over the country. They're in solidarity with the workers of Cuba, the California Hunger Action Coalition and similar outfits.
&nbsp;
A&nbsp;blog that follows Olympia-related matters&nbsp;quoted a couple of&nbsp;TESC students:

&nbsp;“If the Washington Legislature cuts my access to the State Need Grant and Work Study, I won't be able to attend Evergreen next year. That's the bottom line,” said one Evergreen student. “We need a fairer tax structure in the state so these shortfalls don't happen again year after year. I need this education to have a better life.” Another said, "Look at all these cuts happening to everyone! It's seeming more and more dangerous to rely on the state for anything. We need to rely on ourselves and each other." 

To the first student, the answer to his conundrum is simple: If you don't have the money to go to college then don't - go get a job in a cannery in Koniag, AK or bus tables at Many Glacier Hotel in Montana (I did that) to pay for your next year of school. 
&nbsp;
Since the mascot of TESC is a geoduck, a visually irritating specie of mollusk, it's not out of line to tell the first student to clam up.
&nbsp;
The second student unwittingly utters the wisdom of the ages on this issue when he urges his classmates to eschew looking to the government to solve their problems. Instead, he says, "We need to rely on ourselves and each other." Uh huh...Does that include paying for your own education?
&nbsp;
Like, have we been saying that since the days when Moses was in short pants?
&nbsp;
College president, Les Purce (left), is encouraging the students and staff to walk out, even though strikes by public employees are illegal in Washington state. Maybe they'll see fit to go tend the vacant house Purce elects not to live in that the state provides for him on top of the $5,000 per month housing allowance he receives as part of his compensation package. 
&nbsp;
Kudos to our own Amber Gunn for&nbsp;kicking over the rock under which this was found.
&nbsp;
Next time anyone tells you there's no place to cut the state budget, tell them that a good place to start is a fat red Sharpie pen through&nbsp;The Evergreen State College.
&nbsp;
The Piper
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:03:19 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1895</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Tax foes, advocates go head to head at hearing to suspend I-960</title><description><![CDATA[Things got a bit testy at today's public hearing to suspend Initiative 960. Tempers flared as tax-hikers and taxpayers expressed their views about the initiative's two-thirds legislative requirement for tax increases and its transparency provisions. 
&nbsp;
Freedom Foundation's founder Bob Williams testified to the fact that voters want legislators to exhaust all options before considering tax increases. 
&nbsp;
Here is an excerpt of his testimony:

Just a little over two years ago the voters passed I-960 when our economy was booming. By making it harder to raise taxes, they were asking you to limit spending. You ignored them and spent $1.3 billion more than the revenue forecast. If you couldn’t find a way to balance the budget at a time when the state took in record high revenues, as it did in 2007, it certainly is no surprise that you are unable to balance the budget today. 
&nbsp;
General fund state spending is up $7.2 billion, or 31 percent, since the 2003-05 budget. &nbsp;Total state spending, despite all the talk about a $9 billion shortfall, is up $1.3 billion since the last budget cycle. And despite all the complaining, you only managed to reduce Near General Fund spending by 3.2 percent. 

&nbsp;
Moody’s Investors Service now gives Washington a negative credit outlook, and almost everything you are doing will exacerbate the problem. Moody’s lists some of their primary concerns as: an increased reliance on one-time budget solutions, a protracted structural budget imbalance, and failure to adopt a plan to cover expenditures once stimulus dollars run out.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Click here&nbsp;to read Bob's full testimony. 
&nbsp;
I live-tweeted the hearing while Bob and others testified. You can read summaries of who testified at twitter.com/ambergunn.
&nbsp;
Here are some notable happenings that occurred during the hearing:
&nbsp;
Senator Kline stated, "We don't have enough money...and it's nobody's fault," to which half the room broke out in laughter (while the other half glared at the laughing half).
&nbsp;
One private&nbsp;citizen updated Theodore Roosevelt's well-known quote, saying:&nbsp;"Legislators who want to raise taxes usually speak softly and carry a small victim."
&nbsp;
Senator Prentice alleged that I-960 is unconstitutional, to which Senator Pflug took exception. (And by the way, if Sen. Prentice believes that, then it would make a lot more sense for her to sponsor a bill to repeal 960, rather than amend it).
&nbsp;
The President of the Washington Student Association, in&nbsp;discussing I-960's requirements for tax increases, opined that people who need other people's money shouldn't be held hostage by the people to which that money belongs. Got that?
&nbsp;
AWB argued that we need to restore I-601's strict spending limits to prevent crises like this in the future.
&nbsp;
In justifying the legislature's evisceration of I-960's transparency measures, Sen. Tom argued that "only" 2,119 people are signed up to receive I-960 tax and fee notices, and of those only 1300 are "real" people. Apparently we at the Freedom Foundation, who feed that information to thousands of people, are not considered "real."
&nbsp;

]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:32:37 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1894</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>State Needs to be Educated on Starting Preschool Program</title><description><![CDATA[Among Gov. Gregoire’s top priorities this session is creating a statewide preschool program for all 3- and 4-year-olds. She calls it “All Start.” While there’s obviously nothing wrong with parents choosing to enroll their child in preschool, taxpayer dollars going to a brand new system that hush-hushed research shows is failing to meet expectations—in the midst of a budget crisis, no less—well, that’s another story.

Despite the claims by some that early learning is the “silver bullet” to improving public education, it just isn’t. Instead, it’s more like a shiny new toy. 

Research shows that while students who attend preschool might be better prepared for kindergarten, their advantage doesn’t last long; they are soon at the same level as those children who didn’t. In fact, a little-publicized 2010 report on the federal “Head Start” program admits, “The benefits of access to Head Start at age 4 are largely absent by first-grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits.”




Meanwhile, our schools continue to fall short of providing our children with the tools to compete. That’s right, we’re failing in the 13 years of education we currently provide, and we want to add one or two more. 

Aside from the obvious governance/spending flaws, the bill would have a number of negative consequences for preschool providers and those looking for high-quality programs. 

The governor’s bill requires the Department of Early Learning to establish 

• criteria for eligible providers; 
• criteria for early childhood educators; 
• performance measures; 
• curricula options, 
• programs for family participation; 
• and requirements for plans to help children and families transition to kindergarten.

Preschools that receive state funding will be answerable to the government rather than to the market forces (i.e. parents) that tend to drive up quality and control costs in the private sector. 

Sen. Claudia Kauffman took the theory of state-provided preschool even further and introduced a bill that would include preschool in the state’s definition of a basic education, possibly leading to nightmarish funding questions. A substitute bill has been proposed that would create a working group to consider this and other options. 

]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:19:58 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1893</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bill to gut Initiative 960 dropped this afternoon, set for hearing tomorrow at 1:30</title><description><![CDATA[SB 6843 - Preserving essential public services by temporarily suspending the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases and permanently modifying provisions of Initiative Measure No. 960 for improved efficiency and consistency with state budgeting. 

That’s the official title of the bill to gut Initiative 960. The bill was introduced this afternoon, around 3:00. In a meeting with the press, Senator Lisa Brown announced that it is scheduled for a public hearing tomorrow. So much for public notice.

The bill includes several parts, which collectively amend rather than outright suspend the initiative.
&nbsp;
Here’s a breakdown of some of the major changes:
&nbsp;

Sec. 1: Cuts down on cost projections--The fiscal impact of a bill that increases taxes or fees will only be determined when a bill is a scheduled for a public hearing (rather than when it is introduced). Rather than creating ten-year cost projections for these bills, the cost projections will be determined only for the remainder of the biennium (a one to two-year cost projection), plus a “cumulative forecast” for the next four years.

Sec. 2: &nbsp;c) Temporarily suspends the two-thirds legislative requirement for tax increases for the remainder of the current biennium (July 1, 2011).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; d) Provides for the permanent suspension of the two-thirds threshold if taxes are raised for the purpose of funding voter-approved initiatives.

Sec. 6: &nbsp;Allows legislators to repeal or modify tax preferences with a simple majority vote (another blow to two-thirds requirement).

Sec. 7: Changes the meaning of “increases taxes” so that it does not include the repeal of tax preferences (loopholes), among other things. This also means that taxpayers won’t receive a fiscal impact statement on these bills, since they will not be considered to increase taxes even though, obviously, someone will payhigher taxes.

The changes to I-960 are significant enough to effectively render the two-thirds requirement irrelevant. 

The bill will be heard tomorrow around 1:30 in the Senate Ways &amp; Means Committee in Cherberg hearing room 4. It is currently listed as the last item on the public hearing agenda, meaning taxpayers who want to testify can expect to wait. The hearing will also be broadcast on TVW.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:19:21 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1892</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Amber and Dave's Excellent Radio Adventure</title><description><![CDATA[Amber Gunn, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Economic Policy director, was on The Dave Ross Show yesterday. The topic: the Freedom Foundation’s delivery of some 20,000 signatures to lawmakers urging the state to balance the budget within existing revenues (read: no new taxes). You can hear the interview here—it’s about 22 minutes in. 
&nbsp;
The most fascinating part of the interchange between Amber and Dave is that Dave didn't seem to grasp that government doesn’t have any of its own money. In other words, government has no resources that it did not take from us (taxpayers) in the first place. So, Dave’s implication that more government jobs are the answer to solving unemployment is nonsensical. If more government jobs were truly the path&nbsp;to full employment, then the government could just give each person a job—and viola!—problem solved, right? Of course not. 
&nbsp;

In order for a job to create wealth, something must be produced that is valuable—a product or service that people are willing to pay for. Only the free market is adept and nimble enough to allocate resources efficiently in this endeavor. Meanwhile, government, in addition to getting its funding from taxpayers, functions outside the marketplace, with no market-determined prices for its services and no objective relationship between revenues and expenditures. More succinctly: Government is inefficient. 
&nbsp;
Meanwhile, Amber and Dave continued their discussion off-air in an exchange of e-mails you can read here, where Dave writes that “Everyone agrees war ended the Great Depression—yet that amounted to a bunch of government jobs that CLEARLY destroyed wealth.” 
&nbsp;

It’s more accurate to say that the end of World War II ended the Great Depression. Federal spending went from $98.7 billion in 1945 to $33.8 billion in 1948, a reduction of approximately two-thirds (see the Statistical Abstract of the United States, No. 14 in the Table of Contents). While a lot of Keynesians predicted dire economic consequences as a result of such a spending cut, there was in fact a post-war economic boom. Why? Because money was returned to taxpayers in the private sector. 
&nbsp;
Here’s to more interesting on-air conversations between Amber and Dave. 
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:10:20 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1891</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Only in Washington:  The Tree of Strife</title><description><![CDATA[There are many times I find myself yelling at the TV in disgust -&nbsp; during most NFL games, most episodes of The Office of late or anytime Keith Olbermann opens his mouth.&nbsp;Last night, I was once again faced with one of those moments as Q13 Fox reported on the Ballard, WA atrocity of someone actually cutting down a tree...in their own yard.

&nbsp;
Some of the Ballard residents simply grew angry over the tree being cut down, others were in tears as the "symbol of Eastern Ballard" was "destroyed".&nbsp; The ballard home owner actually had the audacity to cut down the generations old monkey puzzle tree from his/her own personal property without even consulting their neighbors.&nbsp; That's right, only in Washington do you need to seek approval from your neighbors before grooming an area of your yard.

&nbsp;
Of course, neighbor squabbles over each other's yards is older than this story (or tree) but another issue now arose as the city of Ballard is looking to fine the homeowner for cutting the tree down.&nbsp; Fines for as much as $12,000 could be levied by the city for cutting down what they deem an "exceptional tree".&nbsp; What is an "exceptional tree" you might ask? Well ,as discussed here, an exceptional tree is:

&nbsp;

"a
rare or exceptional tree by virtue of its size, species, condition,
cultural/historic importance, age and/or contribution as part of a
grove of trees."

&nbsp;

In other words, whatever the city deems at any particular time/place.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;
The real issue here is that this a property rights issue.&nbsp; What a homeowner does with her/her land and property should not be decided by neighbors or government.
&nbsp;


&nbsp;

]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:38:16 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1890</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Get Free - Holy House Bill Batman</title><description><![CDATA[

&nbsp;
We’re back with the popular Get Free Video Podcast - Episode 32

In this week's episode we talk about HB 2872 (it's more interesting than it sounds), Save Our States, and The Cassan Family Victory!


It's a fun time, so click play and enjoy our video podcast while you work!

&nbsp;

Register with us on Itunes to continue to get updates of the show and give us a review.


 

Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes 


]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:49:39 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1889</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Times partners with bloggers for local news coverage</title><description><![CDATA[Bloggers are messy and undisciplined - they're unreliable and cannot be trusted to report news accurately and objectively. Isn't this the message we hear all the time from the mainstream media and the poobahs in journalism?
&nbsp;
So, it's interesting to&nbsp;read that Kirkland Views, a community-based Web site and blog with which I am very familiar, will join a growing list of similar sites in a partnership with The Seattle Times&nbsp;to be the Times' eyes and ears in local communities that now include Kirkland.
&nbsp;
Instead of assigning a staff reporter to keep an eye on the Kirkland City Council, it looks like The Times will now rely upon Kirkland Views and its editor, Rob Butcher, to cover the news. Congrats, Rob, and kudos for bringing Views along. 
&nbsp;
What makes this interesting from a larger, more global perspective is the implicit ceding by one of the major papers in the U.S. of one of its historic major functions to the blogosphere. News about the suburban city council meeting, the community council in an urban neighborhood or the grassroots citizen movement will now come from the proverbial messy and disciplined blogger in his PJs and bathrobe banging away on his laptop at the kitchen table.
&nbsp;
That this frees up a lot more career journalists to get pink slips is beside the point. 
&nbsp;
I wonder when LibertyLive.org will get a call from The Times with an invitation to be its source for coverage of the Washington State Legislature, the governor's office, tax policy and the like. We'll keep a line open in anticipation.
&nbsp;
The Piper
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:08:05 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1888</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Poetry in Motion: State Suspends Search for Laureate, Redmond Gets One</title><description><![CDATA[Last year, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation recommended the state get rid of its official poet laureate as part of our 105 Ways in 105 Days to balance the budget, cut waste and stimulate the economy. A recent article in the Tri-City Herald reports that due to the state’s current $2.6 billion budget deficit, Governor Gregoire has requested the state suspend its search for the next poet laureate. The story also notes Washington state has been without a poet laureate for about a month. Despite this budget “cut,” nobody lost their feet. 
&nbsp;

But seriously, the Freedom Foundation applauds the governor’s common-sense decision not to spend taxpayer money on a poet laureate—hardly a core function of government—during a budget crisis in the midst of an economic downturn.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Unfortunately, as detailed in the Tri-City Herald article, this type of level-headed thinking has not spread to Redmond, where last year the city council approved spending $5,000 a year on a poet laureate. 
&nbsp;

In what has to be an early front runner for the most politically tone deaf quote of the year, Redmond Arts Commissioner Clint McCune had this to say: “There’s no better time than during economic troubles to think about where you’re spending your money. Being daring enough to spend a little money on poetry might be the thing to push us forward.”
&nbsp;

Push forward to where, exactly—bankruptcy? Also, McCune would do well to remember that Redmond is not spending its money, since it doesn’t have any of its own money. Rather, it’s spending the money of tax-paying citizens of the city. How about city government being daring enough to prioritize in order to spend public money on what’s most important—especially during a time when money is tight—instead of doling out precious taxpayer dollars on something as frivolous and unnecessary as a poet laureate? 
&nbsp;


Idea: Redmond is home to Microsoft, a company with bazillions of dollars. Why not hit it up for some funding for a poet laureate? Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with poetry. There is, however, something wrong with government paying for it, now of all times.
&nbsp;

&nbsp;
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:40:28 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1887</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Seattle Times Editorial Board Opposes HB 1329</title><description><![CDATA[The Seattle Times just voiced their opinion on the daycare unionization bill, calling it "an improper application of labor law." Read the rest of their take on it here.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:53:05 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1886</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Daycare bill moves on to Senate</title><description><![CDATA[On Wednesday, HB 1329, which would unionize daycare workers in Washington state, passed the House with flying colors in a 62-35 vote.&nbsp; Yesterday it received its first reading in the Senate and was referred to the Labor, Commerce, and Consumer Protection Committee. After the bill was dropped last year when the House and Senate couldn’t agree on amendment language, it will be interesting to see what the Senate decides to do with it this year.
&nbsp;
Meanwhile, a KOMO article published yesterday titled "Not all daycare owners thrilled with childcare unionization" begs the question we've been asking for the past year. What will unionizing private daycares actually accomplish?
&nbsp;
In the article, daycare owner Candi Doran shares her answer to the question. "There's no benefit to it. They (the union) offer me nothing."
&nbsp;
According to the bill’s intent, Doran is spot on.&nbsp; In this new type of collective bargaining agreement, the union’s organizing of daycares really has nothing to do with representing members. 
&nbsp;
It’s important to note that this bill actually creates a new definition of collective bargaining. The original bill language states:
&nbsp;
"Unlike traditional collective bargaining, this new approach will afford these directors and workers the opportunity to bargain with the state only over the state's support for child care centers, a matter of common concern to both directors and workers.&nbsp; Specific terms and conditions of employment at individual centers, which are the subjects of traditional collective bargaining between employers and their employees, fall outside the limited scope of bargaining defined by this act …” 
&nbsp;
What in the world does the issue of bargaining with the state over its subsidies for low-income children have to do with union representation???
&nbsp;
Absolutely nothing.
&nbsp;
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I feel the need to emphasize the nonsense of this proposition.&nbsp; There’s no reason for SEIU, as a labor union, to involve itself in welfare advocacy. It means a sure profit for the union at an added cost to daycare owners. 
&nbsp;
According to SEIU representatives interviewed by KOMO, the provisions of the bill have been changed to give daycare owners the choice to unionize rather than incorporating them by force. I’m not holding my breath that such a provision would last for long, but it may be just enough to ensure passage by the Senate.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:38:41 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1885</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bottled Water, Water Everywhere and Not a Drop Untaxed</title><description><![CDATA[In what must surely be part of an ambitious plan to tax everything under the sun (never let a budget crisis go to waste), lawmakers have introduced HB 3120 in the legislature. The bill, if passed, would impose an in-state wholesale tax of 0.00296 dollars per ounce&nbsp;of bottled water to fund public health services. Naturally, wholesalers would pass this on to retailers, who in turn would pass the increased costs to their water-swilling customers. 
&nbsp;
Bottled water, of course, is considered a food item, and as such is exempt from the state’s retail sales tax. Nevertheless, some members of the legislature see an opportunity to—ahem—enhance revenue. According to a cost projection issued by the Office of Financial Management as required by the endangered I-960, the proposed state tax on bottled water would produce a tidal wave of income—almost $684 million over 10 years. See the breakdown below:
&nbsp;


    
        
            
            Year
            
            
            
            
            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bottled 
            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Water Tax
            
        
        
            
            
        
        
            
            2010
            
            
            
            
            
        
        
            
            2011
            
            
            
            
            $&nbsp; 58,583,000
            
        
        
            
            2012
            
            
            
            
            66,173,000
            
        
        
            
            2013
            
            
            
            
            69,283,000
            
        
        
            
            2014
            
            
            
            
            72,540,000
            
        
        
            
            2015
            
            
            
            
            75,949,000
            
        
        
            
            2016
            
            
            
            
            79,519,000
            
        
        
            
            2017
            
            
            
            
            83,256,000
            
        
        
            
            2018
            
            
            
            
            87,169,000
            
        
        
            
            2019
            
            
            
            
            91,266,000
            
        
        
            
            
        
        
            
            Total:
            
            
            
            
            &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $ 683,738,000
            
        
    



And where exactly would the money from this new tax go? According to the text of the bill, proceeds would flow to “funding local health jurisdictions to conduct core public health functions of statewide significance, as defined in RCW 43.70.514.”
&nbsp;


Rather than flood taxpayers with new and/or higher taxes to pay for core government functions, why not prioritize and cut wasteful spending—of which there is a lot, so don’t let the governor and lawmakers tell you otherwise—to balance the state budget within existing revenues? I know, I know, I’m throwing cold water on the legislature’s plans to take more money from our wallets, instead of making the fundamental, difficult changes necessary to get the state budget under control. 
&nbsp;

There’s no word yet on whether the legislature will come up with new taxes on the remaining elements: earth, air and fire. 
&nbsp;

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:27:24 MST</pubDate><link>http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1884</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>