Washblog

More Pending Legislation

Noemie's post reminded me that I hadn't gotten around to writing about an important piece of legislation making it's way through the process this session.  It doesn't appear on the pre-file list, but the latest version I saw is Bill Req #:3415.1/06 "Establishing minimum labor standards for certain large employers as related to health care services expenditures." 

**Beware, this may be boring to many people, please skip to the bottom for an important action item if you begin to feel drowsy!**

This legislation aims to establish a floor for employer based coverage that will stop the further erosion of employer-based coverage, a critical part of our health care system. 

The legislature is set to hear arguments on the Fair Share Health Care bill on January 19th.  Fair Share Health Care is a union backed initiative that is being pushed all across the country.  The basic gist is that large employers must provide a bare minimum health care coverage, if they do not, they must reimburse the state for that difference.  This is largely in response to Wal-Mart who is notorious for leeching off state health care systems.  Here in Washington alone we paid $1.6 million last year to insure 341 Wal-Mart employees through the Basic Health Plan.  Similar legislation was passed in Maine last year, but was vetoed by the Governor with an executive from Wal-Mart standing beside him. 

The legislation to be discussed this session only affects employers with 5000+ employees and sets the rate for private businesses at 9%, and non-profits at 7%.  So if a large company only pays 6% of their payroll towards healthcare for their employees, they must reimburse the state 3% of their payroll - which will go towards the Health Services Account (to fund BHP).   There are exemptions for high wage employees so that high-wage employers aren't hurt by their relatively low expenditure on healthcare.

There was apparently quite a bit of debate on where to set these percentages so as to not unduly harm good employees in the state, like Costco.  My understanding is that Costco has been convinced to stay neutral on this bill, and possibly even be supportive.  The hospitals are ok because they are up over the threshold even before high-wage deductions, the restauraunt association has no members over 5,000 employees so they are ok.  In reality this doesn't affect a whole helluva-lot of employers in the state, but the standards are so low that those it does affect really ought to be ashamed of themselves.

There is a pretty impressive set of groups lined up behind this legislation, including: Washington State Labor Council, Washington Community Action (formerly Washington Citizen Action), UFCW International, SEIU State Council, WA State Nurses Association, WFSE, WA State Hospital Assoc, Community Health Network of Washington, WA State National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood affiliates of WA, WA for Healthcare, WA Alliance for Retired Americans, and lots more.

However, as always, this won't be easy.  One really important part of getting this legislation passed is naming the companies that are leaching off our public health care system.  18 other states name the employers of people who are enrolled in basic health plans.  Just recently Governor Gregoire announced that she still will not release that information in Washington State.  EVEN THOUGH WE ALREADY COLLECT IT.  There was initially some concern that if the Employment Security Division provided this data, they may be in violation of Dept. of Labor regulations.  However it has been discovered the DSHS and the Health Care Authority have been tracking this information and providing to to legislators on condition of a pledge not to divulge that information. 

There is no law against DSHS or HCA making this information public, they have just declined to do so.  The Fair Share Coalition fears that this may signal efforts to derail this legislation.  So we all need to make our voices heard.

Please send an email to Governor Gregoire's health care point-person, Christina Hulet -  Christina.Hulet@ofm.wa.gov, and call Governor Gregoire at 360-902-4111.  Tell them that Washington State taxpayers deserve to know which large employers are using taxpayer dollars to subsidize healthcare for their employees and their dependents.

PortDork

Futurewise needs help

Our friends at Futurewise are circulating a letter writing campaign to the Snohomish County Council - called stop the feeding frenzy - to remind them of their obligations to provide proper representation to all their constituents, not just the rich land developers.

It is a critical time for the future of Snohomish County. Unfortunately, the county council is pushing through bad decisions without public input just before the holiday season. Luckily, we can still make a difference by urging our council to vote against the expensive and irresponsible comprehensive plan that makes tax payers foot the bill for a developer feeding frenzy.

Click here to take action: http://actionstudio.org/?go=1921

I urge you to take a moment to e-mail your council. Click on the link to send your message to the council.  Please send this by Wednesday, December 21st to have you voice heard. http://actionstudio.org/?go=1921

For those who live in Snohomish County, please take a moment and fire off their letter to the Council. It is also posted in its entirety below:

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.

Looking for leadership

Another great letter from Lietta Ruger of the MFSO:

Grant Blume,
Legislative Assistant
Office of Congressman Brian Baird,

Dear Grant Blume,

     Thank you for your attentive response.  I look forward to hearing back from you when you have opportunity to speak with Congressman Baird.   As I indicated in our phone call, knowing that Congressman Baird is aware and has concerns regarding Stop Loss issue and impact on families is reassuring, however, I'd like to learn of ideas he has that would empower us to do more to be of help to him.  I am speaking for myself as a military family with 2 loved ones who are now Iraq veterans, having served extended (15 month) tours in Iraq, March 2003 through July 2004.  Both are both now under orders, along with their division for redeployment to Iraq as well as Stop Loss orders.  I am also a representative family of Military Families Speak Out, Pacific Northwest, a chapter of the national organization, Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) www.mfso.org.

New Documents on John Roberts

Written by Ramiro Gutierrez of Uniting Souls Music:

New documents show that John Roberts was a key player in shaping policies of the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. Here are some highlights:

Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.

Roberts argued for restrictions on the rights of prisoners to litigate their grievances; depicted as "judicial activism" a lower court's order requiring a sign-language interpreter for a hearing-impaired public school student; and argued for wider latitude for prosecutors and police to question suspects without the presence of their attorneys.

Then-counselor to the attorney general Kenneth W. Starr (yes, the same Ken Starr who persecuted the Clinton's for over 5 years) asked Roberts to prepare a memo that "marshals arguments in favor of Congress' power to control" the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

He also represented the mining industry in arguing for rolling back environmental and health protections and requirements.

This guy is dangerous and extreme, no matter how the corporate media & the Bush camp try to paint it. If confirmed, he could sit on the Supreme Court for up to 50 years, affecting many many generations to come.

PLEASE call Senators Cantwell & Murray to urge them to vote against his confirmation. Both Senators and leaning towards voting Yes as of right now. They need to hear from us. You can simply state that you are calling to urge the Senator to vote AGAINST the confirmation of Mr. Roberts to the Supreme Court due to his extreme views which are out of step with the mainstream:

Sen. Patty Murray   206-553-5545

Sen. Maria Cantwell  206-220-6400

Letters to Reichert regarding torture and intimidation

This one coming from Noemie from the SKCCP:

Dear Representative Reichert:

Two recent votes of yours appear to turn a blind eye to intimidation. 

You had an opportunity to discourage Air Force Academy faculty from proselytizing enlisted people and you did not.   It is unconstitutional to promote religion by government employees at a government institution.  It is unjust to support the use of taxpayer money, which comes from people of all religions, to support one religion. 

Even worse is your vote against establishing an independent commission to investigate the treatment of detainees at prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.  It is incredible that you trust the military, which appears to be responsible for these abuses, to investigate them.  My father, a deeply conservative man who fought in WWII would have been devastated to know that the US government was responsible for torture -- and that conservatives were the chief apologists for it.

It is deeply disturbing to me that my tax dollars appear to be paying for torture -- and for political representatives who do not care enough to investigate it.

Honesty and Stop Loss

Excellent LTE that was sent to me by Arthur Ruger, husband of Lietta of the Pacific Northwest chapter of the MFSO, and a Vietnam Vet:

Dear Senator/Representative

I want to write and encourage you to explore legislation at the state or national level that requires a formal presentation of the Stop-Loss Pentagon policy as it is applied to enlistment contracts into the Guard, Reserves and active-duty of all military organizations.

When one buys a house or car the signing includes an assortment of paperwork that involves among other things a paper trail of full faith and disclosure. The idea is that the buyer or borrower is required to formally declare and acknowledge that he/she has had all the implications of the contract explained and understands them.

The issues brought up in the recent Santiago vs. Rumsfeld case magnify that - among other things - those who sign on the bottom line are generally in or just out of high school with limited experience in the world of employment, self-sustenance and dealing with the consequences of decisions which may or not be decisions of the moment driven by impulse.

As it is, our high schools have become something you and I never had to deal with in our lives - mandatory attendance and presence in what is literally shark-infested waters where military recruiters enjoy open-season with unrelenting aggressiveness towards our children at school.

I am employed as a social worker for the state of Washington. Last month I had occasion to interview a young man a year out of high school - a young man still considering college, trade school or immediate employment. I asked him how often recruiters contact him.

He did not hesitate. "2-3 times a day every day."

Recruiters hiding behind the No Child Left Behind and preying on families who are very poorly informed about opting out of recruitment efforts are more and more becoming the public face of a desperate and cynical Pentagon that appears more and more to be the senior hucksters trying to maintain unreasonable quotas at the expense of truth.

A "read-this-before-you-sign" requirement with its implied session of "truth-in-lending" would give greater credence to those who defend Stop-Loss with the disingenuous "They knew what they were getting into."

Further, it would remove some of the sense of victimhood presented by these young soldiers as well as the sense among their families that the soldier AND the family have been HAD.

Such legislation is very much in harmony with current tenets of American capitalism that facilitate aggressive marketing and public disclosure. It would also, I believe, help to inculcate among those who do understand Stop-Loss and go ahead and sign the enlistment contract a sense of genuine sincerity and appreciation of what they are laying on the line.

It would help the signing to become almost the commencement moment of an act of patriotism genuine in its purpose.

Again, I encourage you to work within your legislative houses to draw up and pass something that goes way beyond the simple and shallow "Support the Troops" bumper stickers and that involves recruits and their families more fully in such an important participative moment at a time of national emergency.

Otherwise, Stop-Loss as currently administered and justified is a simple and fraudulent deception with deadly consequences.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you at your convenience.

Arthur Ruger
Bay Center, WA

Letters, wk 2

Courtesy of John Gideon of votersunite.org:

Legislator,

     When the Secretary of State or his representatives discuss voting systems they will often say that only “electronic voting systems” are qualified to meet HAVA disability access standards. What they are really saying is that Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines are the only systems that meet those standards. You all now know, from my previous emails, that this statement is not true. HAVA states that DREs or other systems that are disabled accessible may be used. And you now know that there are more ‘other systems’ than there are DREs that meet the requirements.

     So, why are other systems better than DREs? Let’s look at some facts. In King County they use precinct-based optical scan machines. When they set-up a precinct they only need one machine at each precinct. When Snohomish or Yakima County sets-up a precinct they need more than one and, depending on the size of the precinct they may need 5 or 6. DREs cost a bit less than a precinct based optical scan machine but they end up costing the tax payer more money because you need far more of them. That’s why the state of  Ohio has decided to use precinct based optical scan only; including their disability accessible machines. Of course, these cost comparisons do not take into account the addition of a voter verified paper ballot printer on each DRE used. That can add $400 to $500 to the cost of each DRE machine. Even the use of voter verification software on DRE machines will drive up the cost of a voting system. Optical-scan machines are much cheaper in the long run, especially in a state where over 70% of the voters do not vote at the polls.

     With DREs, as the number of voters per polling place goes up, you need to add more machines. With precinct-based optical scan, you only need to add more voting booths. Voting booths are cheap and generic, and can be redistributed between polling places. On election day, if you discover you have too many booths at some locations and not enough at others you move them. (You can't do that with DREs, since once voting starts, you can't move a DRE to a different location because it contains precinct-specific ballot configurations as well as already-cast votes.) If there are excessively long lines at a polling place, you just need to get them more voting booths and marking pens, not more machines. DREs are not a scalable solution.

     A recurrent and serious problem with DREs is that voters sometimes receive the wrong ballot type (or an incomplete ballot) but can’t find out that this has happened until after they start voting. Such incidents have been documented in several states where DREs are used, including California, Maryland, Georgia, and most recently in Hawaii. In some of these cases, voters have been partially disenfranchised, as they have been denied the opportunity to vote on races for which they were entitled to vote.

     It is only after the voter has started voting (and often not until they finish voting) that a voter may realize that the ballot he or she received was the incorrect type or that it is missing one or more races or questions. In many cases, this realization comes too late, as some voters have inadvertently cast their DRE ballots while searching for the missing races or questions. And even when voters detect this mistake in mid-ballot, they typically have to compromise the secrecy of their electronic vote when showing poll workers that their partially-voted electronic ballot is of the wrong type.

     Contrast this with an optical scan ballot system, where voters can inspect the complete ballot at the time they receive it from the poll worker and can exchange any incorrect ballots for the correct ballot type before they begin to vote. Such exchanges can be done without compromising ballot secrecy.
     The problem of poll workers mistakenly giving voters an incorrect ballot type is clearly a human problem that can occur regardless of whatever voting technology is used; it can partially be addressed by better training of poll workers. However, it is a problem that will never be completely eliminated, and one which any voting system must adequately address. To date, DREs have not adequately addressed this problem, nor will it be addressed by adding voter verified paper ballot printers to DREs.

     DREs are advertised as voting machines that will solve many problems in the voting process. In fact, while they may solve some problems, they create many more and these new problems do not have any easy solution. DRE systems are more expensive for the taxpayer. DREs do not allow for ballot mistakes by their design. The voters in Washington will be happy to join the voters in Michigan, Illinois, and now Ohio when they have a system that is all optical-scan and optical-scan compatible.

Letters for Legislators

This is a new category for WashBlog. I will place all letters designed to be sent to Legislators here. These letters come from readers, and I encourage people to post suggestions in the comments section.

The first letter: