As usual, The Wall Street Journal has picked up a story about politics in Washington State that our mainstream media has ignored.  WSJ writer Kim Strassel reveals how the state's most unethical attorney, liberal activist Knoll Lowny, routinely uses and abuses the state's legal system for political purposes.

The WSJ first covered this abuse of our state's legal system two years ago in an article appropriately named Scoundrel Country.  Strassel detailed Lowney's history of targeting a conservative candidate or organization and then filing spurious lawsuits designed to harass and create a media circus of scandalous headlines--he sued U.S. Senate Mike McGavick in the middle of his campaign against Maria Cantwell, he hauled Dino Rossi into a day-long deposition a week before election day in his 2008 challenge against Governor Gregoire, and he tried to get a court to block BIAW's participation in that same election.

Ever the political opportunist, Lowney is at it again, dusting off the bogus lawsuit he used to sideline Rossi from the campaign trail in 2008 to make some political hay in Rossi's much-hyped run against U.S. Senator Patty Murray.  Using the same eleventh hour tactics for which he is famous, the court date initially set for Lowney's latest maneuver was November 1--the day before the election.  The judge this time moved the date until after the election. 

That's a bummer for Lowney, but The Hammer feels confident Lowney will dream up some way to garner the media headlines he needs to try to taint Rossi before election day.  Because we all know when Lowney whines that he desn't think it is "appropriate" to be "litigating it [his sleazy legal tactics against Rossi] in the press," that only applies when the press isn't in his favor.

After posting Union Boss Rick Bender's comment that his staff "had a tough, tough task--trying to make L&I look good," The Hammer was quickly chastised and corrected by labor's pr flaks David Groves and Kathy Cummings.  Seems The Hammer misunderstood what Bender was saying...he actually said his staff "had a tough, tough task--trying to make Al & I look good."  That would be Union Boss understudy Al Link.

Under the entertainingly hypocritical subject heading "way, way, way too much hyperbole," (they certainly know a thing or two about too much hyperbole), Groves rants about The Hammer's "America-hatin', baby-seal-clubbin' faux controversy" (ya, there's no hypobole there) before he gets around to demanding a correction. Along the way he acknowledges The Hammer's mad "skillz" that he says can only be learned from "decades of conscience-smothering cynicism."  Hyperbole pot, please meet hyperbole kettle.

The Hammer isn't afraid to admit when we're wrong, and in this case we were. When we turned the volume up really loud and watched Bender's speech a couple of times (that alone should earn those of us who toil on this blog a raise), we confirmed that for once the labor goons were telling the truth---we did have Bender's comments wrong.  

But in our defense, Bender spends so much time defending L&I, who could blame us for thinking he said "L&I" instead of "Al and I?" Since the business community got serious about ending the state's workers' comp monopoly, Bender has been on a bender singing the praises of the bureaucracy that has run the state's workers' comp into insolvency.  And his staff is earning their pay giving props to L&I too.  Talk about a tough, tough task.

But unlike Bender and his crew, getting the facts right is important to The Hammer.  So while the labor squad runs around the state making up lies about I-1082, The Hammer is sticking to the facts.  So, Mr. Bender, we stand corrected.  You did not say your staff has "had a tough, tough task-trying to make L&I look good."  But we'll say it.

Union Boss Rick Bender admits it's no easy feat defending the grotesquely inefficient and incompetent state Department of Labor & Industries (L&I):  

...my staff has "had a tough, tough task--trying to make L&I look good."

Is there such thing as too much democracy?  The U.S. soldiers who have served this country defending democracy probably don't think so.  Nor do the millions of refugees who land on U.S. soil every year in hopes of escaping oppressive, authoritarian regimes where democracy is unknown.  And The Hammer is betting the Iraq and Afghan nationals who are fighting (and dying) to free their countries from the clutches of tyranny would not agree.  Ditto for the Chinese students who died in Tianemen Square. 

But apparently there is such thing as too much democracy.  One Union Boss thinks so.  AFL-CIO Political Director Karen Ackerman, speaking at the Washington State Labor Council convention in Tacoma yesterday, complained that we in Washington have "way, way too much democracy"  as she assailed the multiple ballot measures opposed by organized labor.  And mind you, we don't just have too much democracy...we have way, way too much of it.  From someone engaged in a power-struggle campaign to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, this is yet another illuminating assessment of unions' disdain for democracy.

Hundreds of thousands of citizens signed petitions this year to do what their elected officials won't: Eliminate government monopolies, lower taxes, and try to help small businesses create jobs to get the economy back on track.  HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS.  Union bosses like Ackerman don't like it when uppity voters disagree with the ruling political class, and they certainly don't like it when voters balk at paying higher and higher taxes to sustain an already-bloated government payroll.  So they complain about democracy while they hurl sniveling insults about "special interests" who sully democracy, while conveniently neglecting to mention the millions of taxpayer dollars they shovel into their special interest campaigns ($200,000 just last week from the SEIU to pass an income tax here in Washington).  It's always the other guy who is a special interest.

The Hammer thinks Ackerman's comment is not only frightening, but truly enlightening.  The Union Bosses running the show really believe democracy is a bad thing.  They believe they know best, so the rank and file should sit down and shut up. 

Let's hope voters give Ackerman and other Union Boss a double-dose of democracy this November.

The trial attorneys and labor unions opposing Initiative 1082 seem to be employing a "whatever sticks to the wall" strategy for convincing voters to reject I-1082, the business community's measure to allow private insurers to compete with the state to offer employers the workers' compensation coverage they need to protect their workers. Simply put, to give businesses a choice.

The Hammer realizes the inherent difficulty in persuading intelligent voters that a state monopoly is good and competition is bad (only labor unions and trial attorneys could believe that). The no on I-1082 camp clearly has an uphill battle. 

So we're not surprised that in their effort to get voters to reject the innate common sense of I-1082, they've ginned the anti-1082 propganda mill into overdrive.

First they kicked off their campaign with paranoid warnings that I-1082 was a ploy to allow greedy Wall Street insurance titans to take over the state's workers' comp system so their fat cat executives can use the evil profits to buy mansions and yachts.  They invoked every big business Wall Street cliche, from taxpayer bailouts to high executive salaries.  Of course, while labor and lawyers attack capitalist ideals, Wall Street is currently the state's best friend--the profits from their stock market investments are the only thing preventing the state-run workers' comp fund from total collapse.

Then they hystrionically declared that injured workers would be victimized by said Wall Street insurance titans.  After all, anyone motivated to turn an evil profit surely would do so at the expense of injured workers.  Nevermind the fact the state routinely victimizes injured workers who want to return to their job and paycheck by forcing them to languish for an average of nine months in "time-loss purgatory."

Next they threw integrity to the wind, making up lies to alternately warn that workers and business owners would be left unprotected because the evil insurance companies would operate unregulated, beholden and accountable to no one.  Washington would be the Wild West of workers' comp.   Nevermind the fact that nothing in I-1082 exempts any insurer from consumer protection laws or insurance regulations. In fact, consumer protection laws will be enhanced because under I-1082 the state will have to abide by the same insurance regulations that govern private companies--an inconvenience from which they are currently exempt.

Now they're trotting out a feigned concern for the evil profit margins of small businesses.  In a press release today they melodramatically caution businesses' bottom line will suffer if I-1082 passes.  The release notes that I-1082 ends the state's unique (unique as in Washington is the only state in the nation that does this) practice of forcing employees to pay a portion of workers' comp taxes. While labor unions have for years argued employers should pay the full freight of workers' comp taxes, suddenly they're arguing employers will suffer if employees are let off the hook for paying their fair share.  Of course what they don't mention is many businesses ALREADY pay their employees' share of workers' comp taxes.  So for them nothing changes...except what they pay will eventually decrease because competition will drive prices down, as it has in other states.  For the businesses that don't pay their employees' share--as one small business owner put it: "I would much rather pay 100% of the premiums and have a choice."  That's why the Association of Washington Business, which the press release disingenuously quotes out of context, has endorsed I-1082 (as have hundreds of business owners and every major business organization in the state). 

Nothing screams desperation like a campaign designed to mislead voters with hypocrisy, lies and false implications.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) announced today it is representing six taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Governor Gregoire's controversial and costly 2009 executive order demanding radical regulations to reduce global warming. 

The executive order was Gregoire's way of getting around the Legislature's rejection of a bill (SB 5735) she pushed earlier in 2009 implementing the state's version of cap and trade.  Then Director of Ecology (and now Gregoire's Chief of Staff) Jay "Enviro-Mann" Manning drafted the executive order at Gregoire's behest, and demonstrated just how indifferent Gregoire and her enviro henchman are to the economic suffering of the state's businesses caused by the pursuit of her grandiose plans to win the "global race" for green bragging rights. In a confidential memo, Enviro-Mann boasted that the executive order he drew up for Gregoire went even farther than the bill lawmakers refused to pass and would be so restrictive and costly for the state's businesses that the "regulated community" (aka businesses) would be begging for the more reasonable federal cap and trade regs. 

Gregoire took Enviro-Mann's talking points and ran with them, gloating that, "What we've done in the executive order is everything that was in that final bill [SB 5735]--plus. Plus. There's more in the executive order than what was in the final bill that did not pass the Legislature." 

Turns out Gregoire's own words may be her undoing--those comments provide the backbone for the lawsuit challenging the executive order.  EFF and its taxpayer clients are arguing the executive order is unconstitututional precisely because it was intended to replace her failed legislation. According to EFF:

"Gov. Gregoire violated the doctrine of separation of powers by snatching a failed bill out of the legislative process and issuing it in the form of an executive order. If the governor wants to pass laws, she's in the wrong branch of government...We have democratic process for a reason...The governor shouldn't bypass the Legislature, regardless of her objectives."

Perhaps Gregoire's obvious disregard for the plight of "the regulated community" in this state, combined with her penchant for circumventing the Legislature to implement the costly global warming regulations she wants, is one of the reasons voters are so unhappy with her.  The most recent poll numbers indicate voters are increasingly experiencing buyer's remorse--a whopping 67% disapprove of her job performance, the highest since she was first elected in 2004. 

The Hammer has visions of Gregoire singing Kermit's song, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

If Congress fails to approve the $480 million the Legislature relied on to balance the state budget this year, the state will need to save about $300 million just to get through the year.  Governor Gregoire could call the Legislature back to Olympia for a special session, but that's looking less and less likely as many Democrats don't want to take any more bad votes in an already bad year for them.  And we already know from this last go-round that touching state workers' salaries and benefits is not an option. So what's a Governor to do?

Demonstrating her exemplary leadership and problem solving abilities, the Governor created a Committee on Transforming the Budget (which is stacked heavily with tax-takers like bureaucrats, labor unions and environmental groups), and set up a website asking for the public's input.  She's  also taking her dog and pony show on the road with a series of  statewide hearings ostensibly designed to hear what taxpayers think. Too bad she wasn't so concerned about what the public thought when the Legislature was hearing and passing title-only bills and violating public hearing notice requirements. 

The first of Gregoire's four "I care what taxpayers think (wink wink)"  statewide hearings took place last night in Tacoma.  As expected, the tax-takers showed up in full force to protect their entitlements.

But frustrated taxpayers have a few suggestions of their own.  Ranging from "stop spending on tepid and saccharine public art" to "cutting small business taxes," clearly taxpayers get the joke.

The Editors of the Vancouver Columbian also get the joke, as demonstrated by their editorial last month about the budget crisis, the Governor's outreach efforts, and the best way to reform government:

"Now, if only you would mention something about state workers sharing the burden by reducing their pay and benefits. Whenever that subject is brought up, we still hear only crickets. Consider this bizarre comment from Tim Welch, spokesman for the Washington Federation of State Employees, about the threat of further cuts in state government services: “It is a sad day when an effort to ‘transform’ the budget appears to be nothing more than cover for cuts that make no fiscal or common sense.” No, Mr. Welch, that sad day actually dawned long ago when your union, the governor and other Democrats agreed on extravagant, hidebound contracts for state workers … then tucked those contracts safely outside the deficit-solutions arena … then refused to declare the fiscal emergency allowed by law that would have opened renegotiations.

Spare us the crocodile tears about cuts in services when politicians refuse to hold the public unions’ feet to the fire of austerity. That unsightly coziness, plus relying on money from a federal source that is in financial disarray, is a recipe for failure."

As our neighbors to the South prepare to elect a new Governor this year, Democrat candidate John Kitzhaber, whose campaign is backed by labor unions, is singing a tune familiar to those of us here in Washington who have had the pleasure of paying higher taxes thanks to our Governor's labor union largesse.  In an interview with newspaper executives last week, Kitzhaber said he was confident public employees would agree to concessions "under the right conditions."  As is the case in Washington, public employee unions are coming under fire for "ignoring economic reality," and are increasingly under pressure to make some of the same sacrifices many private employers and their employees have had to make.

How did the unions respond to Kitzhaber's statement?

Ed Hershey, a spokesman for the union's Local 503 in Salem, praised Kitzhaber for showing "good faith and trust" with public employees and said workers were willing to talk about making further sacrifices if "we are not being dealt an unfair burden." He warned, however, that "the devil is in the details."

Washingtonians should know by now, that's code for "don't count on it."

Back in 2007 when Governor Gregoire was handing out double digit pay hikes for her public employee union pals, she said, "I expect them to be good soldiers. We've shown that, when we do have revenue, we will be very fair to folks, so when we're in troubled times we'll expect the same fairness from them."  But in the 2010 session, when the Legislature faced a $2.6 billion budget shortfall (just like the one Oregon has on the horizon for 2011), the unions shot down any attempt to extract concessions.  The Governor's (lame) response was to simply throw up her hands and claim nothing could be done.

Oregon voters should not be fooled into thinking that any union-backed Governor is going to force the public employee unions to concede anything. 

We've all heard the debate over the wisdom of raising taxes during an economic recession.  When the Legislature hiked taxes on water, pop and candy earlier this year to make up for their inability to curb the state's out-of-control spending, everyone had an opinion.  But one dramatic tax increase received almost no attention. 

The unemployment insurance taxes that every employer in the state pay increased an average of 54% this year.  Yep, you read that right.  At a time when unemployment is at a record high because employers can't afford to keep workers on their payroll, they are forking over--on average--54% more in unemployment taxes for every worker than they did last year.

Now the state Employment Security Department has confirmed what the business community has been warning for months--unemployment taxes will increase yet again next year.  But for all the small business owners out there already struggling to keep employees working, don't worry--it will be only be a measly 42% increase this time! 

This means Washington State's employers will be paying nearly 100% more in unemployment insurance taxes than they did two years ago (that should do wonders for our state's unemployment rate).  So it makes perfect sense that ESD is now proposing to make the system even more costly by permanently expanding the unemployment benefits, right? 

Bureaucrats at ESD want to accept a one-time payment of $98 million from the federal government, but in order to access the money they must permanently expand unemployment benefits. They haven't decided exactly how benefits will be expanded, but they've got a couple different ideas lined up.  Remember, these expanded benefits will be permanent.  So in the long run, the $98 million will end up costing the state's employers much, much more. 

What a great deal for the employers who are on the hook to pay these taxes!  The state gets the benefit of $98 million, and the state's employers get to pick up the tab into perpetuity.