|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Policy Positions |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K-12 Education: Washington benefited from federal stimulus spending on K-12 education, but this was a one-time windfall and we can’t rely on it again. Even with the extra money, we still lost all funding for I-732, which provided for cost-of-living salary adjustments for our teachers. We also lost $600 million in state funding for I-728, which was designed to enhance student achievement and reduce classroom sizes. This is a disaster for our public education system! While the budget may be critical, K-12 education is still a mandate under the State Constitution. We owe it to our children and to ourselves to invest more in education. At the same time education funding was axed, the Legislature passed a long overdue redefinition of a “basic education”. This will provide for full-day kindergarten, six classes a day for secondary schoolchildren (up from five), extra services for gifted students, and possibly even free preschool for low-income families. This will surely cost a lot of money—as any serious investment would—but right now, it looks like yet another unfunded mandate. The law says implementation must be complete by 2018. I support cutting less crucial services if absolutely necessary to ensure that education gets the financial support it needs by that time. It must be the top priority. Here is what I recommend:
Higher Education: Higher education is not a mandate under the State Constitution. We have nevertheless had publically funded colleges and universities for many years, and they have become a vital component in our overall education system. These institutions, however, have been gradually starved by the state in recent years. In the current budget, funding was cut by an average of 16.6%. This is why the Legislature authorized the University of Washington, for example, to increase tuition by 14% during each of the next two years. That still left a funding gap of around 6.5%, meaning instructors will be laid off and class sizes will increase. K-12 education must come first, and public health and safety must also be provided. After the constitutional requirements, though, my priority is funding higher education. The costs are already unaffordable for many lower- and middle-income families, even as demand grows. With the reduction in financial assistance, too, students are required to take out many thousands of dollars in loans that will prevent them from attaining financial independence. This is not a burden we should impose on our most competitive students. We must increase funding so that tuition at least keeps pace with inflation. I believe that an improved investment in higher education will keep the best businesses here. The money does not appear available to do this at the moment, and I hope the next year or two doesn’t set us back too far. After 2010, conditions should improve sufficiently that we can make higher education funding the priority it should be. In addition to funding our existing colleges and universities, demand for seats at those institutions has grown so high that a new one should be constructed very soon. Economic conditions and arguments over its potential location have delayed this project, but the red tape needs to be cut at the earliest possible opportunity. Finally, I support ensuring that higher education instructors and staff receive competitive compensation. Many of our institutions are losing talent due to budget cuts and the state’s refusal to treat them fairly.
Taxation: Washington has an antiquated and highly regressive system of taxation that hurts the middle class. Unfortunately, our state government has avoided any meaningful tax reform for years. We cannot delay any longer. Here are my primary areas of concern.
The second problem is unreasonable assessments. There have been numerous complaints about properties being valued far above what they could be sold for. This doesn’t do the property owner any good, but it generates millions of dollars in unfair tax revenues. Currently, assessments are handled by county authorities, and this is appropriate. What we need, however, is a commitment to better, more uniform assessment practices that include recognition of market realities. If this requires an amendment to the State Constitution, so be it. The third—and biggest—problem is that our property tax is regressive. Everybody is taxed at the same rate, which means middle-class property owners pay the bulk of the tax. As a middle-class homeowner myself, the annual tax liability hits me fairly hard. People less well off might be dissuaded from buying property altogether. I believe the tax burden needs to be adjusted toward more valuable properties. There are already several proposals for doing this, but they need backing by legislators to get them on the agenda.
Energy/Environment: Right now, the environment isn’t a high priority because “we can’t afford it”. However dire our state’s budget is, the environmental catastrophe awaiting us will be far worse if we do not act now to curb carbon emissions. A lot rests on the federal government to set national goals. This has not happened, which is why states like California have pursued their own environmental agendas. We can, too. The single greatest effort we can make to protect the environment is promoting conservation. Turning out lights, shutting down unnecessary machines (especially computers!), keeping the thermostats a couple degrees lower—these all save huge amounts of power. But we don’t really need the government to tell us the obvious. We get it. Instead, businesses and homeowners need help making buildings more energy efficient. It costs a lot of money to install insulation, new windows, new lighting…and on and on. Most of us can’t afford it. State government can make a difference by extending tax incentives to products and services specifically intended for the purpose of improving energy efficiency. The state should also engage the business community constructively about its energy consumption and set goals for conservation. Not all energy is clean yet, either. We are fortunate in Washington to have abundant renewable energy sources, but we still rely on fossil fuels. Wind farms and solar panels are fine in principle but are ultimately too small-scale and insufficient to meet growing long-term energy demand. In contrast with many of my fellow Democrats, I believe nuclear energy offers a solution. The technology is sound as long as there is sufficient oversight. As for the waste, I don’t like it, either, but the choice is containable radioactive waste or atmospheric pollution that contributes to climate change and thousands of deaths each year. Washington has been understandably hostile to nuclear energy since the WPPSS fiasco of 1983. After a quarter century and a lot of changes, we may need to rethink that. Biofuels have been touted as a great solution to our dependency on oil, but they have been scientifically proven to be wasteful and damaging. The energy required to make biofuels often exceeds the oil savings. Additionally, we are using our food, land, and water to generate inefficient biofuel, which makes no sense. That food usage has also driven up food prices, hurting all of us. I was staunchly opposed to the state tax breaks for biofuels, and as your representative, I would work to repeal them. Finally, I support expanding natural habitat protection to new areas and limiting rural development that inevitably leads to sprawl.
Transportation: Transportation funding has also been hit hard by the economic downturn and the loss of revenue from I-695 in 1999. We expect road maintenance, major improvements, and even new highways, and yet we aren’t willing to pay for it. Each year, the Legislature has to prioritize because there simply is not enough money to devote to even some of most critical projects. For example, the 520 bridge replacement will probably cost over $5 billion, and the state DOT is thinking of putting tolls on it and the I-90 bridge because they don’t have enough money. This is for just one bridge. There are many others that need work. We must therefore consider options for another funding mechanism. Since the people didn’t like the old motor vehicle excise tax, and they will not tolerate more gas taxes, what are the alternatives? Higher licensing fees? More tolls? We can’t squeeze much more waste from the transportation budget, so what are we to do? The Legislature must give the people some options to choose from during the next available election. While the state concentrates mostly on critical maintenance, there is one small but significant area it should divert more attention to: rail transport. Rail is much cheaper and energy-efficient than trucks. Businesses could save a lot of money if it could utilize rail more. The state DOT is already working on rail projects. I believe they should hold discussions with the business community to identify priorities that go beyond maintenance and safety improvements. That way, businesses save money, pass on savings to us, hire more workers, and get some of those rigs off the road! Finally, the state should continue to focus on mass transit development. Some say that it doesn’t really reduce traffic congestion, and some say that they shouldn’t pay for it because they don’t use it. I disagree with both. Mass transit, when it is cost-competitive with driving, gets many people off the road. Remember when gas was at $4.00 per gallon? Traffic was better for a while. It got worse when the price went back down. Gas won’t stay cheap forever, especially with the economy looking better, so buses and trains will be competitive again. As for sharing the cost, it’s a public good! We all pay for things that we don’t use, whether it’s a highway in rural Eastern Washington or ambulances or parks. Mass transit will benefit the region, the atmosphere, the economy, and therefore each and every one of us.
Labor: While I have a strong interest in promoting a positive environment for local businesses, especially small businesses, I am equally committed to ensuring that workers have their due protections and rights. I do not believe that it is impossible to support labor and business simultaneously. My intention would in fact be to improve their relations, or at least reduce the issues of contention between them. I was also disappointed that the Legislature, including many of my fellow Democrats, didn’t take a more balanced approach to labor concerns in 2009. The failure of the Worker Privacy Act was a particularly bitter pill. I support many of Washington State labor’s initiatives, including
We can also help labor by ending the effective practice of stigmatizing blue collar labor in our schools. Unions are understandably concerned about their decreasing numbers, which is partly the result of those kinds of jobs being disregarded in favor of white collar work. Getting your hands dirty in the twenty-first century seems to be beneath us, if what our students hear in schools is true. Yet there are a lot of people, including young people without a college degree, who make a lot more than the rest of us! Not only is a balance between blue and white collar labor vital to a healthy economy, it may very well be in the interest of our children to pursue, say, a job with a construction company instead of a job with a bank. Our schools really ought to point out the potential benefits of a blue collar job.
Health Care: The federal government is set to expand health insurance opportunities for millions of people who cannot afford it. This is a decent first step, but millions will still be left without. The states may cover some or all of the remainder. In Washington, we have the Basic Health program to do just this. 100,000 Washingtonians benefit from this plan when no other help is available. Unfortunately, with the budget being so tight, there has been talk of cutting it back or even eliminating it altogether. That is unacceptable. People’s lives are at stake. If anything, Basic Health doesn’t cover enough people. In this day and age, not having access to health care is simply unconscionable. For those who need an economic rationale, it is undeniable that the vast majority of hugely expensive emergency room visits are by the uninsured. Preventive health care saves money—far more in the long-run than the rather low cost of providing insurance. As a legislator, I would consider it a constitutional duty and a top priority to ensure that all Washingtonians had affordable health insurance. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has also been plagued in recent years by appalling incidents of neglect, dereliction, and incompetence. While the vast majority of its employees are hard working and well meaning, DSHS needs a thorough audit of its procedures and practices. Again, people’s lives are at stake. There simply isn’t much room for errors. The goal of DSHS should always be to improve the quality of its services. In coming years, it will also need to improve the quantity because the baby boomers will need it. A comprehensive audit will help ensure that the department is in good shape to do this. One area of the health care system that is often overlooked is foster care. Washington has thousands of children in the system. Those under the guardianship of foster parents must be monitored more closely to minimize the potential for abuse. Those living in orphanages also deserve more attention. Given their circumstances, they obviously lack many of the advantages most of us had when growing up. According to many reports, such children tend to greater difficulties going to college, maintaining steady employment, and keeping out of trouble. It is very sad when the potential of youth is lost like this. Beyond the state doing a much better job of encouraging adoption, we can provide tuition breaks and job placement assistance to foster kids. For very little cost, their chances after high school could be improved significantly. Another area often overlooked is veterans care. Washington has a whole department (the WDVA) dedicated to this. We do a fair job with this and provide a number of resources for veterans. However, when I speak to a homeless man and find out he is a veteran, I have to believe that we can and should do more. The WDVA has the motto “Serving Those Who Served”. We’re clearly not serving the homeless veteran, either by providing adequate counseling or reintegration assistance—both of which are state benefits. Many other veterans suffering from PTSD or disability also don’t seem to be benefiting fully. I am admittedly not that familiar with the WDVA, but as your representative, I would ask the question: How can we do better?
Justice: “Justice” includes our courts, police, and Corrections Department. “Justice” also includes the idea that we are citizens with rights and freedoms guaranteed under the federal and state constitutions. To make ourselves feel secure is not enough. To placate ourselves with the ability to file lawsuits is not enough. Our laws—the rules by which we govern ourselves—must reflect a philosophy of maximizing our freedom and minimizing the intrusion. As a staunch civil libertarian, I do not believe that the government should impose restrictions on our private lives anymore than is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others. To do otherwise would waste tax dollars and violate our most fundamental principles. The stunning number of people in our corrections system is evidence of excessive state intervention. Why is it that we feel the need to incarcerate our fellow citizens for so many crimes that are either fairly minor or debatably victimless? Consider drug possession laws. They haven’t stopped drug use. There is no concrete evidence that they even dissuade drug use. People will do what they want regardless of these laws. Our solution should not be to throw them in jail. Instead, we should stop stigmatizing drug use and divert the huge savings from prosecutions and incarcerations to education and rehabilitation. As long as people don’t endanger others, the state shouldn’t be involved. Unfortunately, there are plenty of irresponsible people who do endanger others. Laws may not prevent this, but the police are here to at least respond to it. They put their lives at risk to protect the rest of society, and for that they deserve our respect. To that end, as your legislator, I would always have an open ear to the suggestions of law enforcement. It might be a delicate balancing act between my inclination as a civil libertarian and my willingness to accommodate law enforcement, but I think it would be a fair balance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
