Washblog

How Do These People Sleep at Night?

In news that will come as a surprise to no one reading this, the right-wing assault on common decency continues unabated.  Next up?  Family Medical Leave.  It seems that the business lobby has decided that it is sick of it's constituents having to guarantee workers' jobs when they or a family member is afflicted by a serious medical emergency.  The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have declared war on the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and according to some have named gutting this eminently sensible act their #1 priority. 

First some background.  Washington state led the nation with our Family Leave Act in 1989.  This act guaranteed job security and 12 weeks unpaid leave for the birth of a new baby or to care for a terminally ill child.   Our state legislation was superseded by the federal FMLA in 1993.  This extended coverage to more of the workforce and also included coverage for the worker's or a family member's serious illness.

The major changes being proposed include lengthening the time needed to qualify as a serious illness from three days to ten, and worst of all getting rid of incremental leave.  Currently you are able to take a couple hours every Friday, for instance to take your husband to chemotherapy.  This would take 2 hours off your allotted leave time.  In the interests of the almighty dollar, the business lobby would prefer that we be required to take leave a full day at a time.  Not only would this cause our family leave time to be used up much more quickly, it would also require us to use accumulated vacation or sick time to make up for the much bigger loss of paid hours. 

So what does this have to do with Washington?  In a preemptive move, the Family Leave Coalition is pushing legislation (Senate Bill 6185, House Bill 2392) to enshrine and slightly expand the federal FMLA standards in Washington.  Rather than leave Washingtonians to the mercy of the idiots in the other Washington, the proposed legislation would guarantee rights we already enjoy through the current federal act, extend coverage to companies with 25 or more employees (down from 50) - matching Oregon, Vermont and Utah, and include domestic partners as covered family members. 

This sort of incremental action may not be the sexiest issue ever, but since this is a short session the coalition has decided to forgoe the more sweeping changes they have been working on for the past few years.  Namely mandatory paid sick time (currently there is not even a requirement that employers provide any sick leave) and Family Leave Insurance (Paid family leave - which just passed in California).  I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this decision, but I think there is some merit to the recent change in strategy of the Washington environmental movement.  Clifford Traisman, a lobbyist for Washington Conservation Voters, notes: "The environmental community has historically appeared satisfied on walking away from the table if they couldn't get the whole pie as opposed to taking a piece or two. That in itself for some appeared to be a strategy," Traisman said. "That's no longer the case now. We're willing to take whatever pieces we can get, because we can always come back for more later [Link via the excellent Washington State Labor Council - Reports Today]." It certainly must be noted that including domestic partners under this legislation would be a great statement about how we do things in this Washington.

I'll keep ya'll up to date as specific legislative targets become clearer.

PortDork

PS: For those who are interested in this sort of thing, some of the groups backing the Family Leave Coalition include: WSLC, the Economic Opportunity Institute, Washington chapters of the AARP, League of Women Voters and the National Organization of Women, Puget Sound and Washington State Alliance for Retired Americans, Machinists, Teacher and Transit worker unions, Working America, and last but definitely not least..........Greenwood Hardware!!!

Environment as a non-partisan issue: An interview

We expect our elected leaders to look out for our interests and the interests of future generations, not just those of extractive industries and others with deep pockets who seek short-term profits by weakening the laws that give long-term protection to the American people and the land and creatures we all love. (Rep America)

Rep America, a national pro-environment Republican organization, was founded to respond to what it terms "the unfortunate anti-environmental zeal of many GOP leaders in the 104th Congress () that filled conservation-minded Republican voters across the country with dismay."   This is primarily a lobbying organization -- and appears to be an important conservative voice for good environmental policy in the United States. Recently I spent several hours on the organization's site, reading a good part of the analysis and agreeing with most of it.

We've seen a massive transfer of power from the grassroots -- and the middle class -- to special interests. The erosion of trust and civility in the public dialogue is one of key factors enabling this transfer. People withdraw from what they see as a corrupt, poisonous or simply irrelevant political arena. But the power they relinquish increases the influence of special interests. Rebuilding civic trust is one of the keys to restoring the balance of power -- and a prerequisite, I believe, to long-term sustainable environmental and economic policies. As I read Rep America's statements, I began to think of this organization as a voice of conscience that can help restore civic trust across party and ideological lines.

Jim DiPeso, Rep America's policy director, lives in the Seattle area. I wrote to thank him for his organization's work. Jim agreed to meet with me for an interview. I was interested in discussing two major areas. First, Rep America's environmental policies. Second, I am curious to gain more understanding of Republicanism -- independent from what I see as its most problematic current aspects.

Jim's views on non-environmental issues are his own personal opinions. As an organization, REP takes positions strictly on environmental issues and does not take positions on other issues. Its membership is made up of people with diverse views. The uniting issue is concern for the environment. The exchange recorded here is a reconstruction from hasty notes, not exact quotes.

---

Jim is a lanky person who gives an overall impression of quickness. His conversation has that quality of dimension that struck me as a probable reflection of an historical sensibility -- and perhaps a habit of considering many things at once. His previous profession as a journalist for a daily newspaper led to a four-year assignment covering the environmental beat near Lake Tahoe when it was first facing intensive development. This is the second deepest lake in the United States, Jim noted, renowned for its clear deep water. Unfortunately, the clarity -- and quality -- of the water was compromised by the sudden development of the land around it. Lake Tahoe faced an acute and very serious ecological threat. Much of it was averted because enviromentalists rallied to the cause. Although he had always been pro-environment, this journalistic assignment was a turning point for him, an intensive education in the mechanics and meanings of the environmmental movement.

Noemie: How do you think people who may disagree on many issues can work together help restore governance that represents our common interests?

Jim: We need to find ways to connect politics to real world concerns again. Politics needs to become relevant to people in their daily lives. Part of the answer is finding a way to get the money out. This Arctic thing is our number one pork barrel piece of legislation now. Conservatives have allied themselves with special interests and Congress' Republican leadership has lost touch with traditional conservative ideas of stewardship, saving for the future, and leaving ourselves enough margin for error with our life support system which is the environment. It's not only conservatives who have these problems. All politics -- Democrat and Republican -- has become machine politics. The pursuit of self-aggrandizement has edged out attention to real concerns.

Gerrymandering is another big problem we've got to address. As they say nowadays, it's as if voters don't choose their leaders any more -- leaders choose their voters. Here in Washington we have an independent state commission to do the districting for congressional representation and legislators have to vote yea or nay on their recommendations but can't offer amendments. This makes us a little more competitive.

Drilling in ANWR: How WA Reps voted

December 28, 2005 update to this post: I was informed by Jim DiPeso of Repamerica that Reichert supported a Point of Order in the House that would have stripped the ANWR drilling authorization out of the Defense Appropriations bill.

House Resolution 639 waived this Point of Order, therefore allowing the ANWR drilling provision to stay in the bill. Reichert's nay vote on 639 went against the Republican mainstream (there were 21 Republican nays to 179 yeas). The other two Washington Republicans in the US House, Doc Hastings and Kathy McMorris, voted yea.

Sixteen Democrats voted on the other side (for 639). These Democrats were effectively voting for drilling in ANWR. If they had voted no on 639, as Reichert did, the Point of Order would have prevailed and the ANWR drilling authorization would have been stripped out of the appropriations bill in the House. The appropriations bill then went to the Senate, of course, where Washington's Maria Cantwell led the effort to defeat it.

---

It's worth keeping up with how Washington State's U.S. Representatives are voting on the issue of oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This is a particularly acute concern for those of us in the 8th Congressional District, where Dave Reichert has been closely watched on his environmental votes.

Here's the roll call for the version of H.R.2863, "Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes," that passed in the House today. The conference report section of this bill contains language that will authorize drilling in ANWR if it passes the Senate.

As we see, Reichert, this time, voted for oil exploration in ANWR. (See note at head of this entry)

Reichert's known for breaking ranks with the Republicans on ANWR by opposing oil exploration in that reserve. In fact, he has broken ranks on several environmental issues, pleasing many of his moderate voters here in the 8th. The suspicion -- based on information from several sources -- is that he has been choosing votes carefully to preserve his appearance of being a moderate -- but doing so in ways that don't affect final outcomes. Given the vulnerability of the 8th Congressional District in this coming election -- and the fact that it may prove to be a tipping point in the balance of power in the House -- it is clear that the Republican in the House has a strong motive to shield Reichert.

As far as this scheme to slip drilling authorization into a defense appropriations bill, The Wilderness Society puts it well:

"It is outrageous that Arctic Refuge drilling has been slipped into the defense appropriations bill. This kind of legislative action is the height of cynicism and bad politics. Major national policy priorities must not be hijacked for the sake of personal political agendas. A vote to remove the arctic drilling provision does not threaten funding for the troops, but rather is a vote to move defense funding quickly and in the normal course of business."

It's time to call our Senators on this one:

Murray: (202) 224-2621, Web form
Cantwell: (202) 224-3441, Web form

Adam Smith (WA-09) posts to Daily Kos

Adam Smith and Dennis Kucinich wrote a diary today urging that the White House Iraq Group be investigated.  It seems to be lacking action items for us, and is mostly informational (their resolution was blocked), but it's still good to see the Rep from the 9th posting on a blog.

Now if we can just get someone from his office to understand they need to stay around and answer comments!  Baby steps, baby steps...

Click here to read the diary.

Coalition puts pressure on Reichert to vote against federal budget bill for Arctic oil drilling

Kudos to Congressman Reichert for standing up to the House leadership and protecting the interests of his constituents on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. (Coalition puts pressure on Reichert to vote againstfederal budget bill for Arctic oil drilling.) The public has repeatedly told this administration that protecting this vitally important and special place is more important than drilling for a small amount of oil. The US Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that even when Arctic Refuge oil is at peak production, twenty years form now, gas prices would be affected by about a penny per gallon. It is simply not worth destroying a world class wildlife sanctuary and wilderness, especially when we have the opportunity to pursue a responsible strategy of conservation and investment in renewable energy sources.

As a constituent of Congressman Reichert, I sincerely thank him for his strong stance under enormous pressure, and hope that he continues to lead this country toward a more responsible energy future.Please submit a letter to letterstoeditor@kingcountyjournal.com supporting Congressman Reichert’s stand against drilling in the arctic.

Passing it On

A joke making the rounds from Bruner Blog.
Yet clearly defines the stragedy and tactics in form and pattern we now see from experience.

Q: How many members of the Bush Administration does it take to screw in a light bulb?

This just in from my dad:

A: Ten

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: " Light Bulb Change Accomplished."

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.

8. One to viciously smear #7.

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along.

10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Thursday Evening Notes

Editor's Note: This post was written by NPI Executive Director Andrew Villeneuve.

July is known for being a "slow" month, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me this year. A lot has been happening recently.

The Seattle Times ran a really lousy ad this morning filled with lies and mistruths about the estate tax. NPI has a full report on the Times' ad, which was donated by the Blethen family (the Times' owners).

The House passed the CAFTA legislation yesterday, 217-215. Our own Norm Dicks was the only Washington Democrat who voted in favor, stabbing our workers in the back. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called a caucus meeting to discuss possible disciplinary action against the fifteen Democrats who supported CAFTA.

Congress is also close to passing a highways bill that includes $220 million for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. However, receipt of these funds is contingent on the defeat of Initiative 912. If it passes, the federal funding will be lost. Washington Defense has the fight against I-912 covered, including ways to fight back.

Finally, Permanent Defense has been relaunched this evening to oppose Initiative 912, which the Secretary of State today announced has qualified for the fall ballot. The new Permanent Defense includes the Journal, a new integrated campaign blog, and other great features.

New Economies, New Industries

The alternative (part 2 of 2), Part 1

When one begins to see “waste management” as a method for producing energy and other value-added products, the light gets brighter. What we label as “waste” is primarily leftover products that do not have an economical value in the present system. For example, grocery stores routinely discard food that is near its expiration in order to maintain higher prices based on aesthetics. Treating this “waste” as a potentially valuable product solves the problems of discarding it.

Using this ideology towards agricultural “waste” does not only eliminate the management problems – a large environmental challenge – but it also provides a small-scale energy solution to rural areas of Yakima County. Dairy waste, through anaerobic digestion, can be turned into valuable products such as methane and sanitized fiber. Seeing the waste as valuable products makes its management an issue of new industries. Suddenly the farmers find themselves with sustainable, diversified income streams that help solve an important environmental issue, produce new products for local sale, produce alternative energy or fuels, and provide new jobs to the local economy. This is truly a win-win solution for the people.

A restructured economy takes the form of localized industries. Local farms distribute their products locally; decentralized energy systems provide clean, alternative energy to developing areas; and people are more in touch with the sources of their consumption leading to better environmental stewardship. The issues facing the dairy industry in Yakima County are examples of where the new economy can take us. With very little additional input from the people, these agricultural operations will provide the necessary building blocks for a new sustainable economy.

The value of seeing these issues not just as environmental problems but as opportunities for improvement in the sustainability of our local economies means long-term solutions for the entire region. If this development model is replicated, we would find ourselves living in a localized, sustainable community, where we are engaged in both the solution to local challenges and the promotion of new economies and new jobs. The Institute for Washington's Future develops new projects that support new economies and new industries.

New Economies, New Industries

The Problem (part 1 of 2):
Yakima County, one of the richest agriculture counties in the United States also has the one of the highest poverty rates in the State of Washington (19.7%). This is an example of what’s happening around the world. High volume agricultural products, produced on large-scale farms, and distributed globally indeed produce food for many people, but they do not provide the necessary benefits to the local economy. These farms export their economic benefits as well as their products. These agricultural operations are not sustainable because they rely on entrenched methods for land management that, if restructured, could provide enormous benefits to the local economies as well as many environmental problems associated with the industries.

Waste management on dairy farms in the Yakima Valley is a major challenge. What we now call waste is products whose value has not been realized, primarily because of how the present system is functioning. The farms’ growth is restricted because of the environmental impacts of current waste practices, while the communities around the farms still do not benefit from the operations. The battle here is between the entrenched economy and traditional thinking that presents waste problems as a drain on the industry and economy. The traditional economies do not consider the externalities of their operations as potential economic benefits, thus the solutions to their problems are considered a drain to their profits.

The idea of handling “waste” as waste reveals the other side of the traditional thought process: the local energy system is a part of a larger, centralized system. Seeing things in this manner manifests a much larger problem: large-scale solutions do not solve the problems of local industries or ease the local energy demand. The old economy sees carbon solutions to our energy problems – with nuclear energy being the “clean” alternative – while also seeing dairy waste management solutions in terms of moving the industry away from small-scale, family owned farms into large corporate farms that have huge volumes of “waste”, leading to centralized waste management.

It is the traditional, entrenched economic ideology that manifests the current economic conditions in Yakima County. The farms prosper, but not as much as they could, while the local economy does not, which it should. The poverty rate is just one example of how the benefits of the agriculture industry do not only ignore the problems locally in Washington but also creates more problems where the products get shipped. Those economies would benefit greatly from their own localized farm operations.

Inslee to vote against CAFTA

Good. Democrats should not be wavering on this issue, at all. Haven't heard what the stance is from Adam Smith or Rick Larsen yet. They had better get behind the party. Norm Dicks apparently will vote for CAFTA, selling out his party and his constituents.

Nancy Pelosi sums up the importance of the CAFTA vote:

Earlier this month, at a closed-door meeting of Democrats, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was blunt: Any Democrat who votes for the Central American Free Trade Agreement will allow an embattled Republican to squirm off the hook and vote no. A vote for CAFTA, she said, was a vote to keep the GOP in the majority.