This week, The Stranger reported (among other things) that Democratic Rep. Steve Conway's top priority this year is job creation.  This will certainly be a surprise to the thousands of business owners who continue to struggle to pay excessively high taxes for the privilege of providing jobs, since Conway has single-handedly squashed any effort to bring relief from these burdensome costs during his tenure in the Legislature.

This year employers had to stomach an average 54% increase in unemployment taxes, and even bigger increases are expected next year.  How did Rep. Conway offer to help business owners weather the storm? By sponsoring two bills (HB 2553 and HB 2647) to expand unemployment benefits.  When it comes to unemployment taxes, Conway has made his allegiance clear:  "We were run over," he says of the business-supported improvements which were made to the system in 2003.  By "we," The Hammer assumes he is referring to his brothers and sisters in organized labor.

And who can forget Rep. Conway's abysmal record on workers' compensation? Just this year alone, Conway stymied bipartisan efforts to bring reasonable workers' comp reform legislation forward. Conway, who chairs the House Commerce & Labor Committee, refused to even grant a hearing on HB 2950 (a bill to lower costs without reducing worker benefits), and then got mad when his hometown newspaper criticized him for lacking the will to do the right thing.

Since 2005, at least twenty-two bills to reform the workers' comp system and lower employer costs have been introduced in the Legislature.  Not one of these bills has ever been considered for a vote in Conway's committee and, in fact, almost all of them have never even been granted the courtesy of a public hearing.

It's patenty absurd for Conway, who is now in a contested race for the State Senate seat long held by retiring Sen. Rosa Franklin, to assert that he is suddenly concerned about job creation.  If he is going to continue to make such ludicrous statements perhaps he should be more clear: Resolution 130 approved by the Washington State Democrats says the party will support "the creation of  more public funded jobs."  The only problem is if Conway has his way, pretty soon there won't be any tax-paying job providers left in our state to pay for all these public jobs.

Anyone following the investigative series Waste on the Water by KING 5 News exposing the gluttonous waste, fraud and abuse within the state's ferry system knows there is simply no justification for what has been happening in this bureaucracy run amok.  As the ferry system grapples with a $1 billion shortfall over the next 15 years, even the most die hard defenders of tax and spend government are left shaking their heads at this embarassing boondoggle.

After all, how can anyone possibly defend 40 ferry workers who have padded their paychecks with an unbelievable $10 million (above their base pay) in unnecessary, self-assigned overtime over the past 10 years?  What about the court-ordered $2.7 million the state was forced to pay one ferry worker who blew the whistle on these paycheck padders and suffered retaliation by two of his superiors---both of whom were never disciplined and are today two of the top-earning ferry workers?  And how 'bout ferry workers being paid $6 million in 2009 for mileage and travel time (again, above their base pay) to drive to work and back everyday?  Then there are the extra pay perks for ferry employees working on so-called "special projects"--some of these "special projects," and the perks that go with them, last up to 15 years--that have cost taxpayers $1.8 million over the last six years.  Is there any conceivable excuse for the continued employment of a ferry worker who has been busted repeatedly for falsifying his timesheets and using his state vehicle for personal use, and who, when he is at work, uses his state issued computer for hours and hours of non-work activities? Can you think of any justification for spending $40,000 a month in rent for a two-bedroom home and condo with a view (plus free meals) for ferry workers on the San Juan route who might not feel like going home after work? 

Believe it or not, these are just a few of the examples of the waste, fraud and abuse within the ferry system the KING 5 investigators have found. 

Given the crummy timing of KING 5's revelations for a state that is so broke and cash strapped it resorted to taxing water, soda and candy this year, one would think the knee-jerk response would be a very swift and very public assurance that such shenanigans won't be tolerated and heads will roll, so to speak.

Well, one head did roll.  Unfortunately, it was one of the few managers within the ferry system known for pinching those taxpayer dollars.  In the words of KING 5, Captain Pete Williams is a "manager known for finding ways to limit overtime and costly perks for employees, in order to save the ferry system a buck."  But when you're dealing with unions, that's crazy talk--finding ways to limit overtime and costly perks for employees puts a target on your back.  While Williams has gone to bat for taxpayers by representing the state at the bargaining table during union negotiations for the last six years, he won't be doing it anymore.  After unions complained they didn't like Williams, Department of Transportation head Paula Hammond yanked him off the negotiating team. Hammond herself called Williams "a model money-saving manager."  Governor Gregoire sang Williams' praises in a letter thanking him for his "professionalism, perserverance, and creativity" in the 2006 ferry union negotiations.  Apparently Williams has done too good of a job limiting ferry workers' pay and perks.  And since unions run the show in this state, he's out.

What has Gregoire, the person ultimately responsible for DOT head Hammond, Director of Ferries David Mosely and his motley crew of ferry workers, done about an obviously out-of-control ferry system rife with waste, fraud, retaliation and paybacks?

Believe it or not, she is the one person who has jumped to their defense, virtually dismissing the egregious examples of abuse.  In a truly enlightening interview with KING 5 News, Gregoire all but shrugs her shoulders in response to the laundry list of wrong doings.  When not robotically repeating all the good things the ferry system has accomplished recently (none of which address the waste uncovered by KING 5), she defends the system and its porcine ways, and even crows that taxpayers are actually getting a great deal because the ferry system head Mosely is "underpaid."  When pressed by the reporter for some acknowledgement that the clear pattern of waste KING 5 discovered is unacceptable, Gregoire bristles and repeatedly asks whether any of it is "illegal." Because if it's not illegal, it's okay!

The Hammer thinks this interview does more to shed light on the real Christine Gregoire than anything we've seen yet.

"The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that's also a hypocrite."  Tennessee Williams 

The Hammer loves pointing out a hypocrite.  Especially when that hypocrite is organized labor in their desperate effort to oppose Initiative 1082. 

First, a quick education on I-1082, the business community's measure to allow private insurers to compete with the state Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) to offer employers the workers' compensation coverage they need to protect their workers.  In addition to ending the state's monopoly on the broken workers' comp system, I-1082 will also end the state's unique practice of forcing employees to pay a portion of workers' comp taxes.  Washington is one of just four states that does not allow competition in the workers' comp marketplace, and is the ONLY state where employees pay workers' comp taxes. 

Labor unions complain about the worker-funded portion of workers' comp taxes.  Late last year, when L&I was holding public hearings on their proposed 2010 workers' comp tax hike, labor union lobbyists testified in favor of the $117 million workers' comp tax hike on employers, calling it "acceptable."  What the labor goons testified was "unacceptable" was the suggestion that any portion of the employee's share of the workers' comp tax be increased.  In fact, they argued employees' workers' comp tax should be decreased at the expense of employers.

Fast forward six months...I-1082 is filed, which ELIMINATES the employees' share of workers' comp taxes.  That should make unions happy...right?

Of course not.  Now labor is using the elimination of the worker paid portion of the tax as a reason to NOT vote for I-1082.  One of the primary talking points in labor's histrionic anti-1082 propaganda mill is that letting employees off the workers' comp tax hook means employers will be on the hook for even higher taxes.  

Just to be sure you follow: When defending a $117 million workers' comp tax hike on employers, labor argues that employees should not only be spared a tax increase, their taxes should be decreased.  Now that they're opposing I-1082, labor argues employers will suffer if workers don't pay their fair share of taxes.

Hypocrite: A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

So in their effort to defeat I-1082, which is supported by most every business organization in the state, not to mention hundreds of small business owners, labor is not only taking hypocrisy to a new level, they are forsaking the workers they are supposed to champion in favor of political expediency as they feign concern for small business owners.  Business owners aren't buying it...as one small business owner put it: "I would much rather pay 100% of the premiums and have a choice."

Clearly, business owners won't fall for labor's pathetic contrivances.  The reason the business community supports I-1082, including the provision where employers will pay the full workers' comp tab, is because the 46 other states that allow competition and require only employers pay for workers' comp have demonstrated that competition will drive costs down such that they'll still pay significantly less than they do under the state-run system.

Just ask business owners in Oregon, Nevada, West Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Rhode Island, Maine...we could go on, but you get the picture.

Not surprisingly, big labor organizations and greedy trial lawyers!  So desperate are they to convince Washingtonians that 46 other states have it wrong, they've already manufactured a bogus "coalition" of business owners who supposedly oppose I-1082, which proposes to bring choice and competition to Washington's expensive and inefficient workers' compensation monopoly. 

According to their blatantly false talking points, I-1082 is "bad for business" and will "saddle" small businesses with "extra costs."

But who is REALLY behind the campaign to protect the state's monopoly by keeping competition out of Washington?  According to documents filed with the Public Disclosure Commission last week, NOT ONE small business owner has contributed to the No on I-1082 campaign. None. Nada. Zilch. Only big labor unions and trial attorneys who are getting rich off the misery of injured workers have bankrolled the campaign.

Meanwhile, virtually the entire business community is supporting I-1082, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the Association of Washington Business, and dozens of other pro-business Associations.  And if you check out the PDC reports, hundreds of small business owners have personally sent checks to the Yes on I-1082 campaign.

The Hammer thinks it is pretty obvious which campaign is really speaking for small business.

We hold these truths to be self evident...

Okay, the Governor hasn't actually said she endorses I-1082, the business-backed measure to allow private insurers to compete with the state Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) to offer workers' compensation coverage to employers.  But in a press release issued by the Guv's office touting a new budget-building process, every state program is going to be "challenged" via a "series of tough questions to ensure we are getting the best value for the most essential functions of state government...no state activity gets a free pass."

There are eight "critical" questions covering the topics of fiscal responsibility, efficiency and performance that state programs must answer in order to justify their existence--the second and sixth questions on the list:

2. "Does state government have to perform the activity or can it be provided by others?"

6. "Are there more cost-effective ways to do that activity?"

When applying these questions to the state-run workers' compensation system, The Hammer can only conclude that Gregoire supports I-1082. 

2. Providing employers with the workers' comp coverage they need to protect their employees is not an activity state government has to perform (Washington is only one of four states performing this activity), and it is an activity that can certainly be provided by others (as 46 other states allow). 

6. It has been well established that there are more cost-effective ways to do the activity of providing workers' comp coverage--an audit commissioned by L&I determined the state agency is the worst performing workers' comp insurer in the country (out of all state fund and private insurers). For every $1 L&I collects in premiums, it pays out $1.61 in benefits.  And while injured worker claims have decreased 52% since 1990, L&I's administrative costs to manage these fewer claims has increased 82%.  Little wonder the state Auditor warns the state-run workers' comp system is facing insolvency.

So if Gregoire applies her own budget principles, she must support I-1082, which will end the state's monopoly on workers' comp and allow private insurers to compete with L&I, which will save taxpayers a bundle. There is a reason 46 other states allow private insurers to offer workers' comp coverage--competition results in better products and services at better prices. 

If Governor Gregoire is serious about not giving any state program a "free pass" in her new budget-building process, then The Hammer looks forward to her formal endorsement of I-1082.

One of big labor's favorite all-purpose targets is "Wall Street."  With their paranoid opposition to I-1082, which proposes to open the state's industrial insurance monopoly to competition, they decry "Wall Street-based insurance companies" and claim there's nothing wrong with our current system, for which employers pay the second highest costs in the nation.  They and their allies assail profit motives.

But yesterday, at the Department of Labor & Industries' Workers' Compensation Advisory Committee meeting in Olympia, financial analysts for the agency made it perfectly clear that their investment returns - returns driven largely by the stock market - are the only thing keeping the state-run system from collapse. 

During the first three quarters of Fiscal Year 2010, benefit payments for workers' compensation claims exceeded the premiums paid. Paid premiums continue to decline as unemployment persists in all major industries:  Construction is down 29%.  Manufacturing is down 13%. Retail is down 7%. Trucking is down 12%. Finance & Insurance is down 11%.  (Note: What's not down?  GOVERNMENT: UP 1.6%.)

Despite a drop in the number of claims filed, the average duration of claims continues to rise.  In fact, the average injured worker with a time loss claim in Washington misses 274 days of work. In Oregon, the average is 70 days.  Thanks to L&I's inept claims management, benefit payments are continuing to rise, even though there are fewer overall claims.

So how can the system possibly stay afloat?

State Auditor Brian Sonntag says without major changes, the system has a 74.4% chance of insolvency in the next two years.  And it's clear that a system where payments exceed income isn't sustainable for long.

But for now, it turns out the only thing propping up labor's "model system" is that which it rails against the loudest:  Good old-fashioned American capitalism.

Governor Christine Gregoire is conducting a news conference this morning to announce a new process for developing the state's budget.  Her office says "the 2011-13 state budget will be highlighted by more transparency, community involvement and expert outside advice."

The 2010 Legislative Session was remarkable in its lack of transparency and respect for public input when it came to figuring out how to close a nearly $3 billion budget deficit. Lawmakers routinely conducted hearings on "title-only" bills or bills that didn't even exist, waived the five-day public notice for hearings, voted on complicated legislative proposals without having read them and severely restricted public testimony on a number of key bills.

The Washington Policy Center did a good job chronicling the many offenses by government leaders, and earlier this month made a number of recommendations about how to prevent further abuse of open government and transparency laws.  Several newspapers have called for legislative transparency and urged lawmakers to adopt the WPC's recommendations.

Will the Governor's recommendations today include those proposed by the Washington Policy Center? And why did it take nearly six years of governing to figure out we needed transparency, community involvement and expert advice? Let's hope the Governor's new budget process will also be highlighted by not spending more money than we have, and not wasting taxpayer dollars on $10,000 conference table.

This week, amid growing concerns about the increasing national debt, President Obama is pleading for $50 billion in additional federal spending to avoid public employee layoffs.  Meanwhile, the federal Office of Personnel Management has revealed the Obama Administration handed out $400 million in bonuses to federal employees last year, up by more than $80 million from the previous year.

At the same time, Americans are growing increasingly resentful of public employee unions.  Peter Scheer, Executive Director of the First Amendment Coalition, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle about the outrage in California fueled by the awareness that voters are "underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have."  He criticizes the unions for gaming public pension systems and then attempting to hide the evidence, saying "Public employee unions, could have, and should have, taken the lead to stop abusive pension practices, which mainly involve managers and other senior staff. Instead, they have vigorously opposed disclosure of individual employees' salaries and pension amounts."

Private-sector unions are also coming under fire for continuing to be completely out of touch with reality.  In California, voters in two left-leaning cities near San Diego passed ballot measures prohibiting their cities from "bowing to union demands" by outlawing project labor agreements.  As The Wall Street Journal correctly notes:

"Such agreements increase taxpayer costs as competitive bidding between union and open shops is suppressed. From Boston's Big Dig to the San Francisco airport, if it's a project with egregious cost overruns, a project labor agreement is probably involved."

(Of course, President Obama signed an Executive Order almost immediately after taking office encouraging project labor agreements on federal construction projects more than $25 million).

And no doubt Boeing's top executives were feeling pretty good today about their decision last October to locate the second 787 plant in right-to-work-South Carolina in light of the fact that the Machinists Union at the plant in St. Louis voted to go back on strike today after a month-long walkout because 3% annual raises, an employer-sponsored retirement plan and a $5,000 bonus wasn't good enough.  Striking workers with unreasonable demands are something the company will be less likely to encounter in South Carolina.

John Hinderaker at Powerline writes:

"Increasingly, the central conflict in American politics is between the cash-strapped private sector and lavishly compensated public employees. With government workers now out-earning those in the private sector by something like two to one, many taxpayers are saying "enough."

Let's hope.

Yesterday in Congress, Democrats and Republicans joined together in an unsuccessful effort spearheaded by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions.  The EPA issued a finding last December that greenhouse gases were a threat to public health, paving the way for costly new regulations that some say will "regulate the economy into stagnation."  The resolution failed 47-53. All Republican senators voted yes, and were joined by Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

One Republican who wouldn't have voted yes yesterday is Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has repeatedly demanded the EPA regulate carbon emissions.  McKenna was the lone Republican who signed on to a Democrat-supported lawsuit in 2008 against the EPA for not doing enough to "curb global warming." He also joined the posse of pro-regulation Democrats in signing this letter to the EPA ripping the agency for its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

While McKenna pushes for more intrusive regulations from the feds, the Senators who voted yesterday for the Murkowski Resolution to stop the EPA madness understand the destructive and unpopular consequences of giving the EPA a free pass to regulate Americans' future living standards.