Despite a $2.8 billion deficit and the likelihood of nearly $1 billion in new taxes to stave of cutting vital services to the most vulnerable members of society (Gregoire’s favorite descriptive term), Democrat lawmakers found some money in the budget to keep funding the labor union gravy train. 

In the midst of the state’s budgetary crisis, the House and Senate are moving budget proposals that include a $6.5 million dollar giveaway to the powerful Service Employees International Union.  The money will be used to start a training and certification program for people providing in-home care services to the sick and elderly.   

Granted, the creation of such a training program was approved by voters in 2008 (via Initiative 1029).  But in 2008 Governor Gregoire was saying there was no deficit and boasting of Washington’s "fiscal discipline that has left us they envy of other states with a savings account of $850 million going into the next budget year."  

Based on that fantastical claim, voters figured there was plenty of money to fund the SEIU sponsored I-1029 (SEIU spent nearly $1 million to get their self-promoting measure passed). 

Fast forward one year and Gregoire was knee deep in a $9 billion deficit.  To her credit, she kept her campaign promise and held the line on raising taxes, instead making some cuts to state spending while relying on a chunk of one-time federal stimulus money to plug the hole.  One of the programs Gregoire put off funding was the creation of the home-care training program. 

But now that Gregoire’s no-new-taxes crazy talk is ancient history, Democrats who want the powerful SEIU on their side come Election Day are paying the piper by giving SEIU $6.5 million to train home-care workers.  But that $6.5 million will actually result in even more money for SEIU.   

As an article by Washington State Wire's Erik Smith notes, the creation of a home-training program is a way for SEIU to grow its’ union membership because the money being handed to SEIU from the state will help train only those in-home workers who are members of the union.  In-home care workers who do not belong to the union get nothing—they are on the hook to pay for the costly training themselves.  This creates an awfully strong incentive for those non-union workers (of which there are estimated to be more than 60,000, with an additional 26,000 entering the field every two years) to start paying union dues. 

Not a bad return on a $1 million investment.

Attorney General  Rob McKenna’s answer to one of the finish-the-sentence questions in the “Briefly About Me” section of Washington State Bar News magazine:

The Hammer thinks that is rich coming from state government’s biggest defender.   McKenna seemingly had no obligation to the law when he chose to defend Governor Gregoire in a case which the Judge ruled Gregoire violated the law.

The Spokesman Review is among the growing ranks of newspapers impatiently calling for Governor Gregoire and the Legislature to trim the fat from overly generous state worker salaries and benefits before sticking taxpayers with higher taxes.  The entire editorial is worth reading, but The Hammer particularly likes this statement about the need to reexamine state workers’ sweetheart health insurance deal:

“Raising taxes on Washingtonians, especially those who have no health insurance, cannot be justified without more concessions from state workers.”

The SR is right—state workers and their labor union bosses become apoplectic at the mere suggestion of forcing state workers to pick up a greater share of the tab for their health insurance premiums.  State workers currently contribute a paltry 12% of their premium tab, while the state pays 88%.  Meanwhile, private sector workers lucky enough to receive health insurance benefits from their employer pay an average of 24%.

The Seattle Times editorial writer and self-proclaimed “cranky taxpayer” Kate Riley, who has been dogging the state’s refusal to share some of the sacrifices private sector employers have had to make (such as eliminating health insurance coverage for their workers, or laying them off), called Gregoire on her double talk on the issue in a blog post earlier this week. 

Riley posted two video clips of Gregoire addressing the state employee health insurance issue with two very different messages.  Speaking to an audience of labor union hacks at a Washington State Labor Council event last month, Gregoire denounced calls for state workers to pay a higher portion of their health insurance premiums, declaring such suggestions “disgusted” her.

But in an interview this week, Gregoire sang a different tune, saying she is “prepared to open up the issue” of making state workers pay more for their Cadillac health insurance.  She even goes as far as to say she has been trying to work with the state employee union to negotiate such change, but the union refuses to budge.  She simpers that without the union’s agreement to renegotiate state workers’ health benefits, or the Legislature stepping in and providing her with “a way forward,” there is just nothing more she can do.

My how the story has changed.  Last month such talk was “disgusting,” and this month it is the unreasonable union holding things up.

Of course, the truth is Gregoire doesn’t need the green light from the union, nor does she need the Legislature, to reopen state worker contracts.  Obviously she will get neither. 

Gregoire has the authority to take action and do what a governor is supposed to do—lead—on this issue.  But relying on actions she knows will never come from unions or legislators, while pretending those are her only options, provides a convenient (although not believable) excuse to do nothing.  Inaction is a form of action, and as Winston Churchill said, “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

Yesterday a Judge ruled Governor Gregoire broke the law by invoking “executive privilege” as a way to withhold public records requested by a citizen. 

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation wrote an excellent blog on the ruling which detailed the history of the case, as well as Gregoire’s use of the non-existent “executive privilege” to hide public records a shocking 421 times.  And that’s just since 2007! 

Apparently Gregoire doesn’t want anyone to have access to documents relating to the state’s tribal gambling compact, the sale and departure of the Seattle Sonics, the selection and appointment of judges, the state’s regulation of marijuana, clemency petitions of death-row inmates, and state employees’ public email accounts—even if she has to break the law to deny that access.

The state’s Public Records Act, which the Washington Supreme Court once called “a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records,” has over the years been gutted with over 300 statutory exemptions that give elected officials and bureaucrats the opportunity to keep taxpayers in the dark.  But “executive privilege” is not one of them. 

And even if it was, Gregoire would still be guilty of breaking the law—the Judge ruled if an “executive privilege” exemption did exist, the documents Gregoire tried to keep hidden under that guise would not be considered privileged.  As the Judge bluntly put it:

“I can’t imagine any circumstances under which any privilege would extend to protect this particular memo.”

Guess who defended Gregoire’s flagrant violation of the Public Records Act (despite the absence of an “executive privilege” exemption and the Judge’s determination that even if such an exemption existed the doc in question would not qualify for “executive privilege” protection)?  Yep, that would be The Hammer’s favorite defender of state government, Attorney General Rob McKenna. 

McKenna says it is his job to defend state agencies and officials—and in part he is right.  But when government knowingly and purposely breaks the law, Attorneys General have the right to refuse to defend the state.  And plenty of AGs before McKenna have exercised that right and just said no to defending lawbreaking state government, telling them to quit breaking the law or hire another attorney.  Ken Eikenberry, one of McKenna’s “Three Wise Men,” was one of these AGs.  Ironically, McKenna peddled a folksy story when he first ran for AG that his Three Wise Men would be the “source of one guiding principle should he be elected.”    

“They each said the same thing to me: ‘Rob, remember that as attorney general, you have to put the people first and then the state agencies.’”   

So much for guiding principles.    

As reported in The Seattle Times’ blog today, Democrats are already laying the foundation to tear gubernatorial-wannabe Rob McKenna apart when he formally (The Hammer says formally because it is already well established McKenna plans to run) announces his bid for governor.    

Seems the Ds cleverly snatched up the website domain name robmckennaforgovernor.com and began drafting their attacks so they’d be ready to launch ‘em when McKenna confirmed what everyone already knows.   This, incidentally, begs The Hammer to point out McKenna’s naiveté in thinking that if he pandered to the lefties they would go easy on him.  McKenna is learning a valuable lesson—the Ds will never like you as long as you have a “R” by your name, even if that “R” is in name only.

Here’s The Hammer’s idea for a Rob McKenna website: www.anybodybutrobmckennaforgovernor.com 

Late last month, eight U.S. Senators - all Democrats - sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson challenging the agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions without Congressional approval.  The group of liberal coal-state Senators, led by West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, wants to suspend EPA greenhouse gas regulation until Congress can figure whether (and if so how) to regulate energy emissions.  They say such an important policy decision that will impact "workers, industries, taxpayers and economic interests" in their respective states should be made by those elected to represent those interests, not be done "in isolation by a federal environmental agency."

Contrast the actions of these eight Democrats with our state's "Republican" Attorney General Rob McKenna, who filed a lawsuit against the EPA for not doing enough to address global warming, and was the only Republican to sign onto this letter demanding the EPA regulate greenhouse gases back in 2008.

McKenna got what he wanted.  The Wall Street Journal writes that the EPA's proposed regulations are so "destructive and unpopular that even she [EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson] is backing off."  Jackson is trying to placate the coal-state Senators by promising the EPA will ease into the carbon crackdown, assuring them coal-fired power plants won't really have to worry about the profit killing regs until 2013.  Of course, that is small consolation given Jackson's bombshell revelation "that the EPA plans to raise the carbon regulation threshold even higher than the 25,000 tons per year that her agency arbitrarily selected. According to the law she wants to invoke, regulation is mandated at 250 tons, which would sweep up farms, schools, restaurants, hospitals and other businesses."

So coal plants won't be the only ones with a regulatory noose around their necks...that fate will extend to most every business in every state (thanks Rob McKenna!)

The Hammer doesn't think that sounds like much of a retreat. 

At least business owners around the country can sleep better at night knowing eight Democrats are fighting to keep the EPA from regulating them out of business.  And then there is the state of Texas, which is defending its citizens by suing the EPA to stop them from implementing the devastating greenhouse gas regulations.  Too bad "Republican" AG Rob McKenna doesn't see fit to defend his state's citizens, instead supporting the EPA's job killing regulations in a desperate and pathetic attempt to pander to enviros he hopes will support his doomed bid for governor in 2012.

Last year The Hammer wrote about Jay “Enviro-Man” Manning’s boasting to boss lady Governor Gregoire about the Executive Order he drafted for her on climate change.  In an internal briefing document stamped “confidential,” Enviro-Mann gloated that Gregoire’s Executive Order (issued 05/21/09) demanding radical regulations to reduce global warming will be so restrictive and costly for the state’s businesses that the “regulated community” (translation: businesses) will practically beg for the more reasonable federal cap and trade regulations.  

Enviro-Mann further bragged in the brief that the Executive Order he drafted for Gregoire goes even farther than climate change legislation Gregoire lobbied for but lawmakers refused to pass, calling the new regulations he tacked on “more controversial.”  Enviro-Mann smugly explained the controversial additions will ultimately “benefit” Gregoire’s global warming agenda because the “regulated community” will be so burdened by the new regulations that federal cap and trade will look like a real bargain. 

The Washington Policy Center estimated Gregoire’s hell bent for leather determination to make the Evergreen State even greener would cost the state tens of thousands of jobs…making the grass in other states a whole lot greener for businesses looking for a place to set up shop. 

Today Representative Dan Kristiansen (R-Snohomish) penned an excellent editorial pointing out the urgent need for job creation in this state, not more job squashing regulations.  Kristiansen rightly notes that Washington is already one of the greenest states in the nation, and further “green job-killing regulations” are akin to “a pebble of sand on an entire beach,” yet could devastate already struggling businesses. 

Kudos to Kristiansen.  But The Hammer thinks he left one important critique of Gregoire’s climate change agenda out of his argument.  The Climate Gate scandal has revealed that the only thing man-made about global warming is the phony science behind it.  So Gregoire is pushing for regulations that will kill jobs in an effort to curb global warming that science doesn’t prove even exists.   

The Hammer thinks Kristiansen and his pro-business colleagues in the Legislature should take a page out of Texas’ playbook.  The Lone Star state is using the Climate Gate revelations to challenge job-killing global warming regulations in the courtroom.  The grass is definitely greener in Texas.

The Hammer has opined extensively about the need for the state to get a handle on the spiraling and unsustainable costs associated with paying the generous salaries and extravagant benefits of state workers.  Given the $2.8 billion deficit facing the state, it should go without saying that anything gobbling up 60% of the state’s budget should be considered when looking at ways to save money.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation today released an excellent Policy Highlighter on this very issue. 

It is worth taking a few minutes to read what EFF reveals in their analysis of state employee compensation.  For instance, did you know our state’s employees earn (salary and benefits), on average, $19,500 more per year than a private sector employee?  And that doesn’t even include state workers’ golden parachute pensions…when you factor that freebie in, the number is much higher.  And let’s not forget state workers are awarded a significant amount of paid time off (far more so than most private sector workers).   

It’s so bad that two holy grails of state workers’ cushy compensation package, health insurance and pensions, are headed toward insolvency and the unfunded liability of both benefits threaten to bankrupt the state.

But don’t panic—state workers can rest assured these funds will never actually become insolvent because taxpayers will pick up the tab. 

Since Governor Gregoire has already shot down any suggestion that she renegotiate state workers' contracts with her labor union supporters (The Hammer remembers when Gregoire, after doling out double digit pay raises to state workers, assured she would expect them to return the favor if the state ever hit “troubled times”), EFF is urging the Legislature to declare a fiscal emergency so they can do the deed themselves.

Of course, for most Democrat legislators that’s just crazy talk.  Why risk making labor unions mad when you can ignore the will of voters, gut I-960 and raise taxes?

"If state government was a business, the state might have to shut it down."

So begins a great article by Erik Smith at the Washington State Wire about the three major state funds that either are, or are headed toward, insolvency.

According to Smith,

"Reports from the three state oversight officials indicate that the Wall Street meltdown and the state’s unprecedented budget shortfall contributed to the troubles. But bad judgment calls and the Legislature’s tendency to put off difficult decisions into the future also played a part."

The state employee health insurance fund is strapped for cash, as the Spokesman-Review reported last week, because the state "cut its premium payments by hundreds of millions of dollars, using that money for other things while the insurance fund spent down a large surplus."

The Legislature's bad habit of underfunding the state's pension obligations has created major problems as well.  According to Actuary Matt Smith, "Over the next five years the state must triple its payments to nearly $2 billion every two years, an unprecedented level, in order to make the program actuarially sound."

And regular readers of The Hammer know all too well the problems with our state's workers' compensation trust fund.  It will be interesting to see if organized labor groups camp out in the offices of Mike Kreidler or Matt Smith, demanding they clarify their claims of potential insolvency the way they apparently did when State Auditor Brian Sonntag published a report showing potential problems in the workers' comp trust fund.

As Ferndale Rep. Doug Ericksen says in the article, "“The bad economy is highlighting all these quasi-illegal practices. It’s really a ‘trifecta of failure.’ "

Department of Labor & Industries Director Judy Schurke, labor unions and other defenders of the status quo in workers' compensation have been touting this letter from State Auditor Brian Sonntag which, they claim, proves the state fund is financially strong.  But in highlighting one paragraph in Sonntag's letter, they're leaving out the rest of the story.

In fact, the Auditor stands by the findings issued in this report, despite overwhelming pressure from Schurke and, apparently, organized labor. In his follow-up letter, he says,

"Again, our report is a warning that if this condition continues, the future liabilities may exceed assets within a few years, creating a financial hole difficult to recover from."

Does this sound like a retraction?

The Department may have finally cowed Sonntag into saying "FINE... you still have money to keep the lights on for now," but that's really nothing more than a response to L&I's straw man argument.  Nobody has been making the argument L&I doesn't have the money to meet its obligations today. 

One more note about Director Schurke's performance at the State Labor Council legislative day earlier this month.  When she talks about how other states have made changes to their workers' comp programs since 1911, she mentions that "we" have been able to protect our program from these changes...as though that were a good thing.  But our state-run system costs $1.81 for every $1.00 it collects in premium.  We have the highest pension rate in the country, the highest time loss duration, and despite a drop in the number of claims filed, taxes are going up.  Even the Department's own consultants conclude it's the worst insurer in the country. The Hammer wonders what exactly is worth protecting about this obviously broken system?