The state of Washington's working families

With the economy still struggling, unemployment increasing, and a continued strain on social services dealing with budget constraints while demand for services skyrockets, the Economic Opportunity Institute recently released a report on the status of working families in Washington in 2009. Some background from the report:

Compounding the economic stress on families, over the course of the decade fewer employers provided health insurance and other benefits, more health care costs were shifted to individuals, college tuition shot up relative to median income, and the cost of buying a home skyrocketed.

While the majority struggle, a few are doing extraordinarily well. Some highly paid fields, most notably computer software publishing, have grown briskly since 2000. Those at the top of the income spectrum have by and large prospered. Workers earning at the 80th percentile and above have enjoyed real increases in their incomes over the past decade despite the roller coaster economy. Thus inequality has continued to grow, as it has since 1980. In contrast, throughout the middle decades of the 20th century inequality lessened while the middle class grew. Now wealth is once again as highly concentrated in the hands of a few as it was in the late 1920s.

To be fair, the report also notes that comparatively speaking, Washington residents have generally fared better than those of other states. But if no state is doing well in this recession, and none are, is it better to be the best of the bad or the best that we can be? At the Northwest Progressive Institute, we subscribe to the Paul Wellstone ideal that "we all do better when we all do better." That means that being the best of the worst isn't good enough for us or the citizens of our state, which is why we fight for a better tomorrow.

So how do we get there? The Economic Opportunity Institute came to the following conclusions in its report:

1. Expand investments in education from early learning through college and roll back excessive tuition increases that have limited access to higher education for some.
2. Restore cuts to the state's Basic Health Plan, establish Retirement Investment Security Accounts, mandate paid sick leave by employers, as well as, funding and expanding the family and medical leave insurance program yet to be fully implemented or funded by the legislature.
3. Generate new revenue immediately by taxing various products such as gum, candy, baked goods, pop syrup and by taking steps to reform the tax structure of the state.

Nothing drives the economy like a well-educated, well-trained workforce. In order to have that workforce, there must be opportunity and access to an affordable, high-quality education system for the masses, not just for preparing young people for careers but also for providing job re-training for older, more established workers. Cutting opportunity and access to education, by increasing tuition, only makes it harder for the economy to rebound.

With regard to taxes, we would add that a comprehensive review of all state giveaways of the common wealth (commonly called tax incentives) must be completed to determine which are providing a concrete benefit to the state and those that are not should be immediately eliminated. Our common wealth should not be squandered if our communities or state receive no benefit.

The silent costs of battle: Talking about PTSD

I have nightmares at night, and sometimes I get maybe a handful of hours of sleep for a couple of days straight.

This is one of the many marks that battle leaves on the human mind.

During my campaign for city council, I was terrified people might think I was ‘crazy’. That The Stranger, or Publicola, or The Times would get word that I’m still startled by loud noises and conclude I was some how unstable. This is a very common fear, one that isolates veterans, and it’s leading to a lot of men and women hurting themselves or hurting others.

Last week I learned that a friend from childhood, also an Iraq veteran, was suspected of killing two of his friends in a violent act that could only be related to his experiences at war. He was a good kid, raised by an amazingly devoted family and he like many of us had signed up to serve his country for all the right reasons. It is my hope that he is found innocent, but whether he is or not, we need to have a conversation about the mental effects of battle on our troops.

The military lifestyle is difficult even during times of peace. You spend days away from family and friends, training and drilling constantly. Within the last eight years that rigorous schedule has been topped by deployments of a year and longer.

This time is spent in an environment that does not often believe in mental illness. The idea is that if you can’t see the scars then it’s not a real injury. Soldiers who seek treatment are often times laughed at or ridiculed for reaching out for help.

Those who aren’t are reminded that the symptoms of PTSD are good for the battlefield, a place where it truly does pay to be hyper alert, slightly paranoid, and ready to kill at a moment’s notice.

When I returned from Iraq the first time I was asked two questions: "Do you have thoughts of harming yourself?" and "Do you have thoughts of hurting others?" I was informed that if I answered ‘yes’ to either of those I wouldn’t be allowed to go on leave but would have to stay and go through mental evaluations.

Luckily, I had thoughts of neither and was allowed to go home, but I wonder if everyone coming back was being told the same thing I was.... and if they were getting the help they needed?

It's essential that as our President looks to increase troop levels in Afghanistan that we press him to protect our soldiers from the increased demands on them and their families. We need to see military leaders continuing to receive training and being pressed to understand and recognize PTSD, and slowly working to a military culture that accepts wounded warriors regardless of their wounds.

We also need greater access to VA and non-VA related mental health services, and better supervision of counselors to prevent the just suck it up mentality that does exist in some VA hospitals.

Finally, we as a society must do a better job educating ourselves. We need to understand what it is that soldiers go through during deployment and what they deal with when they get home... so we can empathize.

For me, being a veteran in the Northwest is a very unique experience. I’ve met individuals who supported the invasion of Iraq and thanked me, I’ve met people who did not support the invasion and pitied me, and I’ve even had aggressive people yell and curse at me simply for having served.

It’s wonderful for people to have their own opinions and to express them, but as I watch a woman carrying a baby doll covered in blood around the Federal Building I often ask myself, is that a mark against me or war itself?

I wouldn't ask any progressive to stop protesting the occupation of Iraq. I no longer support the occupation myself. But I would urge activists not to protest veterans themselves. Half the time the things that might get said by protesters are nothing compared to the things a returned soldier tells himself when he wakes up in the middle of the night.

I didn’t choose to invade Iraq. We were ordered by the President of the United States to go into Iraq. We were duped like the rest of the country. Remember the phrase "weapons of mass destruction"?

The only way to combat the effects of war and PTSD is by having a welcoming and supportive environment to come home to. I was lucky, and I had that. Not everyone does, and part of the only way to fix that is for us to start talking about it.

I'm a veteran and I have PTSD. I am not alone.

Higher education, Kafka-style

There's plenty of chatter on the Net this week about President Obama's Afghanistan speech on Tuesday, so I'm going to talk about something else.

Funding for higher education in America.

Presently, we have a system only Franz Kafka could love. It's a system that literally undermines the American Dream, which is the simple idea that people who work hard and play by the rules ought to get ahead.

Case in point: On Tuesday, I heard a story on NPR about a student loan case that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. Yes, that's right. Some poor schmuck has had to defend himself all the way to the highest court in the land over a student loan. Tell me how that makes any sense?

So basically, there was this guy Francisco Espinosa, who was a baggage handler for America West. Not the world's greatest job, right?

But he's a hard worker, so he figures, why not go to college? He got a student loan, got a degree in computer drafting and design, but then like happens to so many people, couldn't find a job in his field.

No fault of his own. Then America West got into financial troubles, and cut his pay. Also, not his fault. Espinosa is a responsible guy - he plays by the rules - he didn't drive a flashy car or live in a home worth more than he could afford. In fact, he didn't have any debt at all, except for that student loan, which he couldn't keep up on with his reduced wages.

Creditors started hassling him, calling him, his mother, demanding payment. He's still working as hard as he can, still playing by the rules to the best of his ability, but now he's got people hounding him over this loan.

So he filed for bankruptcy. The court put him on a new payment plan he could afford, and he paid off the loan. He even got a letter from the court verifying that he had satisfied his obligation to the lender.

He thinks he's good, right? All is said and done? Except no, after all this, the lender filed suit saying tht the court was out of bounds in the payment plan it had constructed, and that Espinosa still owed them four thousand dollars. Except that the lender had been notified of the court's proposed terms, twice, and had never raised an objection.

How incredibly bizarre, and completely mind boggling. Civilized nations offer support to their children in pursuing higher education. In some countries, like France, Argentina, and Denmark, any kid who wants to go gets a free ride. In Sweden and Germany, you don't even have to be a citizen!

But not here. Not in America, the richest nation in the world. Here, we make you accept indentured servitude to predatory lenders for the privilege of knowledge, we show no mercy if your life hits a hard patch, and come after you again anyway even after the court says you've fulfilled your obligations.

This disgusts me and the entire team at NPI. It really does.

We used to have robust financial assistance for aspiring scholars. We had Pell Grants, and student aid, and the like. Technically, we still have them, but thirty years of chipping away at them by right-wing administrations who would rather buy bombs than books has eroded this support to meaningless levels.

It's people like Francisco Espinosa who pay the price.

Domestic partnership law takes effect today following approval of Referendum 71

Readers, here's something to be cheery about as the holiday season gets into full swing: One of the greatest civil rights victories in Washington's history - the expansion of our domestic partnerships law - is, as of today, finally on our books following the certification of the 2009 general election.

The Secretary of State's office, which operates the domestic partners registry, says it is prepared for the "everything but marriage" law enacted by the Legislature and approved by the people as Referendum 71 to go into effect.

"Our office is ready for the new changes and is hard at work to ensure the registration process continues to go smoothly," Corporations Director Pam Floyd said in a news release.  "Couples needing assistance completing the forms should not hesitate to contact our office," she added.

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's office has also posted a Q&A for domestic partners and their families which covers insurance-related topics.

Since November 4th, there have been around ninety registrations a week, as compared to a past average of thirty seven or so per week, the office announced. Although it continues to handle registrations, terminations will henceforth be taken care of by Washington's courts "in similar fashion to a divorce proceeding".

There are now more than thirteen thousand domestic partners registered across Washington. The SoS is urging couples who have questions about the new law to contact a trusted legal advisor for assistance; only basic information about the expanded partnerships law is available online.

State's environmental movement announces its priorities for 2010 legislative session

This evening the Washington Environmental Priorities Coalition - a combined effort of more than two dozen leading environmental groups based in the Evergreen State - announced its agenda for the 2010 legislative session.

The agenda, made public in advance at the end of every year, typically consists of three or four specific priorities which focus on tackling the climate crisis, reducing pollution, conserving our precious natural resources, or a combination of those overarching policy directions.

Here are the 2010 priorities, as described by the coalition:

• Safe Baby Bottle Act: More and more evidence shows that the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is harmful to children’s health. Laboratory studies have linked BPA to cancer, miscarriage, obesity, reproductive problems, and hyperactivity. Yet manufacturers can still legally use BPA in products such as baby bottles, infant formula cans, and other food containers. The Safe Baby Bottle Act would address this problem by phasing out BPA in baby bottles, food and beverage cans, and other consumer products.
• Working for Clean Water: [It's] about creating jobs, rebuilding our local economy, and cleaning up polluted waterways like Puget Sound and the Spokane River. Each year millions of gallons of petroleum pollute our water through storm runoff, a serious threat to our health and environment. This bill is a fee on polluters that will fund shovel-ready, local projects all over the state to stop this contamination. Now is the time to put Washington back to work by building storm water infrastructure that we’ll be proud of for generations.
• Sustain Environmental Protections in the Budget: Our state is in the midst of an economic recession that threatens safeguards we all depend on, including core environmental protections. Washingtonians rely on protections that keep our families healthy: clean water to drink, unpolluted air to breathe, and the clean-up of toxic contaminations. Maintaining Washington’s clean environment also attracts business and qualified workers to our state, making us a driver in the new green economy.

The priorities are more modest and defensive in nature then they've been in past years, owing to the impact of the Great Recession, which has stretched our state's common wealth to the breaking point.

Let's not forget that environmental protection is a public service. It costs money to keep our air and water free of pollution, to research alternatives to fossil fuels, to maintain our parks, and clean up toxic waste spills, for instance.

Readers who'd like to support the 2010 Environmental Priorities are urged to attend the coalition's 2010 Legislative Workshop on January 9th and the Lobby Day on January 26th. Follow the links for more details.

Tim Eyman's 2010 scheme will be an Initiative 960 redux (or so he tells the Associated Press)

Not content to take a Christmas break from hawking bad ideas, initiative profiteer Tim Eyman has told The Associated Press that his 2010 initiative will be a redux of his 2007 measure, Initiative 960, which narrowly passed statewide two years ago and imposed unconstitutional limits on the Legislature's ability to raise revenue.

The wire service, which frequently acts like a promoter for Eyman, has obliged his request for publicity by putting out a "news brief" summarizing his "announcement". The "news brief" is all of five paragraphs and doesn't contain any direct quotes. The Seattle Times, Seattle P-I, and Longview Daily News have all run it on their websites so far.

We're not surprised that Eyman plans to run a more devious and destructive version of Initiative 960 as his 2010 initiative.

As longtime Eyman opponents, we're all too familiar with his habit of recycling the same harmful schemes over and over and over again.

Since Eyman's 2010 measure will be built on the same faulty premise as Initiative 960, it's already guaranteed to be unconstitutional on its face. The Washington State Constitution explicitly says that the Legislature is a democratic institution where majority rule shall prevail. From Article II, Section 22:

SECTION 22. PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

Emphasis is mine.

Eyman is once again demonstrating his contempt for the whole idea of representative democracy, the system of government our nation was founded upon. Since the Legislature won't kowtow to Eyman's demands, he means to try and force them to by undemocratically changing the rules, proposing a law that explicitly violates the Washington State Constitution.

In anticipation that allowing Initiative 960 to stand would set a bad precedent, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown initated a lawsuit during the 2008 legislative session which sought to have I-960 tossed out.

Rather than ruling on the merits of the case - the real Constitutional issues involved - the Court dismissed Brown's suit, filed against Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen, on a technicality. (Owen was just as disappointed with the ruling as Brown; they had both hoped the Court would affirm that Initiative 960 is at odds with the supreme law of our land, and wipe it off our books).

However, the Supreme Court's refusal to strike Initiative 960 doesn't mean the measure passes muster with our Constitution. Tim Eyman might stupidly and naively claim that, but he'd be utterly wrong if he did.

The reason Eyman is running a "Son of 960" (as he will probably call it) is because Democrats now have the ability, as of this month, to amend Initiative 960 by simple majority vote of the House and Senate. Ironically, I-960's unconstitutional provisions were protected by the Constitution itself, which forbids the Legislature from modifying an initiative until two years to the date after it has gone into effect.

We have already been preparing to go to battle with Eyman again in 2010, so today's "announcement" really doesn't change much.

We are resolved to continue opposing his destructive schemes until he and his initiative factory are out of business for good.

In West Point speech, President Obama tries to justify escalation of Afghan occupation

Earlier this evening, in a major primetime speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point, President Barack Obama officially announced his decision to temporarily escalate the occupation of Afghanistan, and, unlike his predecessor, managed to defend his rationale for doing so without resorting to sloganeering.

"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan," the President said. "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan."

The President began his speech by outlining the history of America's presence in Afghanistan (which began as a response to the September 11th attacks) including the complications that resulted from the unnecessary and immoral occupation of Iraq. He then reviewed the actions he has taken in respect to Afghanistan since taking office at the beginning of the year, and explained that has made the decision to escalate the conflict because the status quo is not sustainable and he doesn't believe cutting our losses and leaving is a feasible option.

The President acknowledged - but did not dwell on - many of the factors that may interfere with the success of the strategy he's just committed us to.

(For example, the legitimacy of the Afghan government, which was chosen in an election "marred by fraud", as the President put it).

He also repeatedly denounced imperialism without admitting that our foreign policy for the better part of this decade has been imperialist.

"We do not seek to occupy other nations," Obama said. He continued: "We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours."

The problem is, we've done exactly that in the past, and we are still doing it. We are not fighting conventional wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We are occupying those lands because two successive administrations have deemed it to be in our interest. "National security" is a convenient umbrella term that masks the real reasons why we're in places like Afghanistan or Iraq.

There has never been a formal declaration of war by Congress for either "police action". Congress has voted twice on "authorization of force" resolutions, which have been conveniently viewed by the White House as good for eternity.

Regrettably, the House and Senate have followed up by repeatedly writing blank checks appropriating money that we don't have to fund both occupations, whilst failing to exercise stringent oversight over the executive branch.

But there are signs that that might be changing.

In his response to the President's speech tonight, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon voiced respectful skepticism, declaring, "I have a number of questions about whether the Administration’s goal in Afghanistan is realistic, and how that goal advances our national security." He elaborated:

How will our strategy overcome Afghanistan’s history of decentralized power exercised by regional warlords, its systemic corruption, the insurgents’ ability to use the presence of a foreign force as a rallying point, the geography and topography of the country, and the Taliban’s easy access to explosives and funding?

Does this strategy reduce or increase the number of extremists motivated to strike at our nation?

What will prevent al Qaeda from finding other safe havens in other places from which to plot attacks against the U.S.?

Are there other approaches that can meet our national security objectives?

Those are good questions, and none of them were effectively dealt with in President Obama's speech to the nation tonight. The President unfortunately seems preoccupied with trying to treat symptoms at great cost instead of looking at the root causes of our problems (in this case, terrorism).

We've often been told that al Qaeda hates our freedom and wants to destroy our way of life. But what the terrorist network really seems to be after is an end to our massive military presence in the Middle East:

Bin Laden is most enraged by the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was incensed when the Saudis invited U.S. troops to their defense after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden — like many Muslims — considers the continued presence of these armed infidels in Saudi Arabia the greatest possible desecration of the holy land. That is why he sponsored bombings of the American military facilities in Saudi Arabia, why he has tried to destabilize the Saudi government, and why the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed on Aug. 7, 1998 — eight years to the day after the first American troops were dispatched to Saudi Arabia.

Of course, our forces are in Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait... and Quatar... and Iraq...) to protect our access to the fossil fuels that we have convinced ourselves we cannot live without. This situation has regrettably existed for decades.

Rather than committing all of our available resources towards the goal of energy independence, we have become further entangled abroad by allowing our addiction to petroleum to continue driving our foreign policy. Lip service is paid to the notion of energy independence, but not backed up with action.

Progressives everywhere have long dreamed of seeing our elected leaders commit to the development of renewable energy alternatives on a scale that is befitting of the urgency of the climate crisis (which threatens the health of our planet) and the recognition of how unsafe our fossil fuel addiction has made us.

But that hasn't happened.

We may have a president who believes in diplomacy and real partnership building, but that won't be enough. We need a president who will put our nation's common wealth where his mouth is. If our President is serious when he says it is not our intention to occupy other countries, then he needs to make sure we have no reason to by ending our dependence on fossil fuels. That will require nothing less than an unequivocal federal mandate backed up with cold, hard cash.

Oil companies are not going to lead us out of the fossil fuel age and into a green revolution, no matter what they say in their commercials. Heck, they keep touting the supposed benefits of drilling for oil and natural gas offshore. How is more drilling going "beyond petroleum"?

President Obama can talk about securing America from terrorists until he's blue in the face. Again, the truth is, we'll never be secure until we become energy independent. As soon as we manage that paramount objective, there will be no reason for us to act like we're trying to win a real life Age of Empires tournament. Terrorists, consequently, will have less interest in attacking us.

That is the future that we should be working towards.

Cantwell, Murray honor slain Lakewood officers on Senate floor

Earlier today, Washington's two United States Senators appeared on the floor of the Senate to remember and honor the four officers who were killed on Sunday in an appalling act of destruction.

Murray, who spoke first, repeatedly called the slayings senseless, and noted that they came on the heels of an ambush in Seattle on Halloween which resulted in the death of one Seattle police officer and injury to another.

"Mr. President, because of this senseless attack, nine children have lost their parents," Murray said. "These were officers... mothers and fathers... husbands and wives... who woke up every day, put on their uniforms and went out to protect our children, our communities and our safety. And Sunday, they didn’t come home."

She concluded: "No words are adequate to express the shock, anger and disbelief that comes with such a brutal crime. And no words will be enough to lessen the loss. Our law enforcement professionals put themselves between us and danger every day. Right now, in light of such horrible events, we hold them even closer in our thoughts and prayers." (Listen to the entire speech).

Senator Cantwell followed, saying, "I rise today to join my colleague Senator Murray in expressing my sorrow over a tragedy that has struck Washington state and the law enforcement community. I want to extend my prayers and condolences to the families, loved ones, and fellow officers of the four police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty Sunday morning in Lakewood, Washington."

She named the four officers and added, "Collectively, these veteran officers served 47 years in the line of duty. Lakewood Police Chief Bret Farrar describes them as 'outstanding individuals' who brought a range of talents to the five-year-old department. These heroes, who put their lives at risk for our safety every day, will be deeply missed and never forgotten."

Kudos to our Senators for making time to reflect on this tragedy. It is comforting to know that the people who represent us in our nation's capitol are so closely attuned to what is happening back here in the Other Washington.