07.24.08
Posted in Campaign financing at 10:19 pm by Administrator
By Eric Horvath
The issue of campaign financing in this election needs to be raised. The purpose is not to ‘sling mud’ but to draw an important distinction between Dr. Carrier and Don Benton. Dr. Carrier is accepting contributions only from individuals. Don Benton has accepted donations from the groups listed below, in past campaigns and in the current contest.
The source of their campaign funds highlights how very different the two candidates are, politically and philosophically. Differences are, in essence, what elections should be about: two candidates standing up and saying “here’s what I think will lead us towards a brighter future.”
Conventional wisdom says that the more money you raise, the more likely you are to win. The end (winning) justifies the means (accepting money from special interests). We don’t think corporate and PAC money will lead us where our constituents want to go.
We say that the source of campaign funding says more about a candidate’s values and priorities than anything else. In our case, the means (upholding our values) justify the ends (voter-owned elections). We don’t want any misunderstanding about whose interests we represent. Elected officials should represent voters, period.
This is merely a glimpse into the financial and philosophical chasm that exists between Dr. Carrier and Don Benton. Once you see Dr. Carrier on the campaign trail and hear his vision for the District, you’ll see why he is the right person for the State Senate.
We hope you’ll take this information into consideration when you choose who you want to represent the 17th District. If this is as upsetting to you as it is to us, join the campaign and donate today. Send the message that we’re ready to take government back to work for us again.
PARTIAL LIST OF DON BENTON CONTRIBUTORS: 2008 ELECTION (as of 7/18)
Donor/ Amount
Money Tree (bundled contributions) 3,000
Washington State Pawnbrokers Association 1,500
Pawn Exchange 1,000
Payroll Complete Services 1,600
Bank of America, Inc. 1,600
IQ Credit Union 1,400
Boeing Employees Credit Union 1,300
Washington Assoc. of Mortgage Brokers 500
Washington Independent Bankers PAC 500
Washington Mutual PAC 700
Credit Union Legislative Action 700
Philip Morris Tobacco Company 700
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 500
Wal-Mart, Inc. (Bentonville, AR) 700
Weyerhauser 900
AT&T 1,600
Motorola Inc. 250
T Mobile 800
Les Schwab, Inc. 250
Progressive Insurance Co. 1,500
Premara Blue Cross 1,500
Regence Blue Shield 700
Aetna Insurance Co. 500
PEMCO Insurance 800
Insurance Physicians 800
WMLA PAC 200
Holland America Line 1,500
Thomas Mears, Holland Inc. 1,450
Glacier Northwest 1,400
Eli Lilly & Co. 200
Western Washington Trial Lawyers 800
Washington Education Association 800
Washington State Farm Bureau 800
Washington Auto Dealers Assoc. 2,300
Washington State Dental Pac 700
PMSA Washington State PAC 500
Washington Affordable Housing 1,600
Inland Northwest PAC 800
Physicians Eye PAC 1,600
National Rifle Association PAC 700
Washington Beverage Assoc. 1,600
United Subcontractors Assoc. 300
North West Sport Fishing Industries 500
WA Software Alliance 350
Justice PAC 800
Taseca Homes (Vancouver, WA.) 1,600
Brent McKinley, Vine St. Prop., Arlington,WA 1,450
Bruce McCaw, Developer Bellevue 700
Nutter Corporation 800
Puget Sound Pilots 1,400
International Union of Painters 1,400
Thomas Young, Regents Bank President 1,450
Monte Schwartz, Regents Bank Representative 300
Ken Kirn, Columbia Cascade 1,000
Washington Chiropractic Trust 1,400
Clark County Chiropractic Trust 1,000
Permalink
06.28.08
Posted in Climate Change at 9:37 pm by Administrator
Some people question whether climate change is really happening, and whether or not it is caused by human activity. I believe it’s one of the most serious environmental threats the human community has ever faced. Extreme weather events such as Hurricane Katrina and this year’s “500-year flood” in the Mississippi watershed are just the beginning. I don’t think we want to wait until our coastal cities are underwater before taking meaningful action to reduce carbon emissions.
The global south is already suffering severe consequences. I worked in the Sahel region of West Africa 25 years ago with farmers who were already suffering from climate change. They could no longer grow traditional food crops and their wells were dry. I did what I could to help mitigate the effects by building wells & earthen dams for water supply and irrigation, but it was inadequate. They became “environmental refugees” and had to move hundreds of miles from their homes.
The story is similar throughout the global south. In Bangladesh and other lowland countries, sea level rise has already inundated hundreds of square miles of farmland. Some island nations in the south Pacific have had to relocate entire populations. As the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves collapse and sea level rises, where will the millions of displaced farmers go?
Here in the northwest, glaciers I climbed five years ago are nearly gone. That’s our water supply. Our rivers have severely reduced flows. The forest on the east slope of Mt. Rainier is nearly dead from drought and disease. If these trends continue, we too could become environmental refugees.
Some people claim that it will cost too much to control carbon emissions, and it will wreck the economy. I did an extensive analysis of the cost of reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels at all fossil fuel power plants in the U.S., in order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. A well funded propaganda campaign funded by the utility industry claimed that it would ruin the economy. My analysis demonstrated the opposite: the cost to the U.S. economy in lost output was about $86 billion over five years. This is less than the cost of Hurricane Katrina, or the Mississippi floods.
My analysis did not factor in the benefits of increased efficiency and productivity, and the development of new technologies and industries that would be required to meet the demand for higher efficiency. When these are factored in, the net impact would be significant economic growth and opportunity.
What can be done about climate change?
We can conserve a great deal of energy by improving efficiency, changing behaviors, retiring old, dirty energy sources, and producing more renewable energy, all at reasonable cost. All of these solutions need to be incentivized in utility rate structures, to promote rapid implementation.
The steps we can take immediately include: a renewable portfolio standard; “feed-in rate tariffs” that allow utilities to charge a higher rate for renewable energy; production tax credits that reduce the cost of new investments in renewable energy; and consumer tax credits that speed the adoption of conservation measures and renewable energy.
To control industrial sources of carbon emissions, I support a cap-and-trade system. Past experience with SO2 and NOx emissions trading has shown that it leads to greater reductions in pollutants than either taxes or regulations do. The European experience over the last few years has demonstrated that we need to auction (rather than allocate) permits in order to establish a meaningful price floor for traded allowances. The cap needs to be reduced over time so that targeted reductions in carbon emissions actually occur.
It is important that we all take meaningful personal action, and I actively work to reduce my own carbon footprint. I started by commuting to work by bicycle and installing solar heat and hot water in my home. I installed 20” of insulation in my attic, and keep the thermostat at 65 degrees in my home. I planted about 60 fast-growing aspens and firs in my yard to offset my carbon emissions. I expect to be carbon-neutral in about 2 years. With appropriate incentives, every household could adopt similar measures at very low cost.
I support adoption of enforceable limits on global warming pollution, and will also support investments in green-collar jobs training to prepare Washington’s workforce for success in clean energy industry and ensure that green businesses have the skilled workers they need. I personally lobbied my legislators in support of I-937. Green industries are among the fastest- growing sectors of the economy, and Washington will benefit by being ahead of the curve and developing this industry as quickly as possible.
Other policy priorities include:
Prioritize transportation investments that demonstrably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and re-orient state transportation investment to encourage mass transit, carpooling, and high-speed bicycle routes on state highways.
Reduce single occupancy vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by creating meaningful transportation alternatives to the automobile, especially mass transit and dedicated bicycle routes on all interstate and state highways.
Provide a mass transit alternative on all major highways in urban areas.
The I-5 replacement bridge should include high capacity transit (light rail or bus rapid transit).
Develop an incentive-based approach to land use planning that encourages higher density development and leaves open spaces for wetlands, wildlife corridors, and greenways.
I agree with Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman, who said: “Innovation is a key to environmental stewardship.” Materials that once were discarded can go into construction projects rather than landfills. Recycled industrial byproducts like coal ash can be made into concrete. Sulfur dioxide can be made into synthetic gypsum used in drywall. These create good jobs and lead to a sustainable future. We need to create them here Washington.
Permalink
Posted in Transportation and Infrastructure at 4:18 am by Administrator
Most of us would agree that economic growth is a good thing. Economies grow and new jobs are created through interaction and trade in goods and services with other regions. Adequate transportation and infrastructure are vital to that interaction and trade. If you were an employer with customers in Portland, would you locate here if you couldn’t get across the bridge? If you are a shipper and waste several hours a day trying to get across the bridge, would you locate a new warehouse here in Vancouver?
Like it or not, Vancouver’s economy is highly dependent on Portland. New jobs won’t happen if people and goods can’t get from here to there more easily. The current I-5 bridge is inadequate for current needs, and it will only get worse. If we want good jobs for future generations, we need to be able to move a lot more people between here and Portland than we currently do. Since more lanes will only relieve congestion in the short term, we need to include a public transit option to meet future needs.
To pay for the bridge, reduce traffic congestion, and encourage people to get out of their cars and use mass transit, we should charge a toll on the replacement bridge. A toll is not a tax. A toll is a user fee that is paid only by people who use the bridge. If drivers don’t want to pay the toll, they can choose to ride mass transit or not use the bridge.
Time is money. Exactly how much is it worth? That’s determined by how much people are willing to pay to avoid traffic. The toll should be set at a price where congestion is eliminated, and it should vary depending on the time of day in order to maintain the free flow of traffic. People who don’t wish to pay the toll can take mass transit instead.
A toll bridge with high capacity mass transit is the best way to support job growth in Vancouver for future generations. We need to build it now, while we still have federal support for the project. I have read the finance chapter of the EIS and am convinced that we can pay for the bridge with tolls, and will not need to increase taxes. I fully support the recommendations of the Columbia River Task Force.
Permalink
06.27.08
Posted in Labor and Trade at 3:12 am by Administrator
There are two vastly different approaches to the decision about what to buy, with very different consequences for workers, the environment, and the economy.
The first is the Wall-Mart approach. Big-box retailers are primarily concerned about offering a product at the lowest possible price. They are less concerned about what workers are paid or whether they have health insurance and retirement benefits. It may not matter that a product was made in an Asian sweatshop where workers are paid 50 cents for a 12 hour shift. They don’t look into whether the manufacturing process uses child labor, pollutes the environment, or causes harm to workers and consumers. They value cheap prices more than workers or economic fairness. Some manufacturers take advantage of that and build their plants where wages are lowest and labor unions and environmental regulations are nonexistent. This is highly profitable. But it results in a race to the bottom that tears apart families, destroys the environment, and impoverishes workers.
The second is the Buy-Smart approach. Conscientious consumers purchase goods at union shops, family or employee-owned businesses, and the Saturday Market. They find out whether workers are being paid a living wage and have health benefits. They look into whether or not inputs are produced in the community and recycled. They purchase goods with a Union or Fair Trade label. They see that their purchases support the local economy. People with this world view value solidarity, economic justice, and sustainability more than money. Some producers market to that spirit of solidarity. They purchase inputs locally and practice sustainability. They respect people and the environment, and pay fair wages and benefits. They may charge a higher price, but producers, workers, and consumers are better off because this approach supports families, protects the environment, and respects the dignity and rights of workers.
Are you disturbed that our plants and jobs have moved offshore? That many of our goods are made in sweatshops without labor or environmental regulations? Or that the global economy is caught in an economic and environmental crisis at the same time huge corporations are earning record profits? In order to support workers and rebuild the local economy, we need to think about our priorities every time we shop. The solution to a broken economy is for everyone to Buy Smart and forget Wal-Mart.
We need to support candidates for public office that will work for these values. I support:
Buying locally and at family or employee-owned businesses whenever possible.
Policies that protect workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain collectively, and that strengthen and enforce laws that prohibit employer intimidation and coercion.
Policies that ensure that workers have legal rights to safe, healthy and fair conditions at work.
Prevailing wage laws and will oppose efforts to weaken or limit their enforcement.
Extending of unemployment benefits in times of economic hardship.
Policies to establish a ‘living wage’ designed to ensure that low-wage workers and their families can live above the poverty level.
Policies that guarantee pay equity for women who perform similar jobs and have similar skills and experience as their male co-counterparts.
Worker’s rights to organize and choose who shall represent them in negotiations with management.
Requiring nonunion workers to pay their fair share of services provided by a union in cases where a union is representing them and negotiating on their behalf.
Minimum wage and indexing laws and would oppose attempts to weaken them.
Providing all residents with access to portable and affordable health care coverage.
I oppose the privatization of Social Security. This is corporate welfare to the banking and brokerage industry.
I purchased my campaign materials here in Vancouver, and they are union made.
Living wages, comprehensive health benefits, and protection of workers’ rights attract high quality workers and businesses to our state, and provide incentives for higher education and training. What’s good for workers is good for the economy.
My opponent’s voting record on these issues indicates a different set of priorities. All were supported by the Washington State Labor Council (details at www.wslc.org/legis/vr-sen08.htm)
Voted “No” on SB 5261, granting the insurance commissioner the authority to review individual health benefit plan rates to ensure rate hikes are justified and reasonable.
Voted “No” on SSB 6333, establishing a citizens’ work group on health care to review proposed statewide plans and propose a plan to provide comprehensive, affordable health care for all Washingtonians.
Voted “No” on SB 6241, prohibiting the sale or use of prescriber-identifiable prescription data by Pharmaceutical Companies for commercial or marketing purposes.
Voted “No” on SSB 6809, providing a tax exemption for low income working families, as measured by the federal earned income tax credit.
Voted “No” on SHB 2815, requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and establish a green jobs initiative to increase the number of green economy jobs to 25,000 by 2020.
My opponent’s campaign materials do not have the union label. Mine do.
Permalink
06.16.08
Posted in The Economy and Jobs at 10:00 am by Administrator
The economy is a mess and it seems not much is being done about it. The price of oil is four times what it was when President Bush took office. We have a global financial crisis that keeps getting worse, and the stock market and value of the dollar have collapsed. Our banks and companies have lost billions of dollars in value. During the Clinton Administration, 22 million jobs were added to the U.S. economy. During the Bush Administration, 5 million were added.
We have gone from record surpluses in the Clinton years to record deficits in the Bush years, and Federal debt has doubled. Fully 70% of the $9 trillion national debt was created under the watch of 3 presidents- Reagan and the two Bushes. Each person in America now owes over $30,000 of the debt, much of it to the sovereign wealth funds of foreign countries. Foreigners are buying up U.S. assets at flea market prices.
This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and we are mortgaging our children’s future to pay for it.
In the midst of this crisis, President Bush presented a record increase in defense spending as part of a $3 trillion budget that would reduce the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and eliminate an array of domestic programs. At a time when we need to be creating jobs and investing in infrastructure, the President called for $1 trillion in tax cuts to people making over $450,000 per year. At a time when American families are struggling here at home, the President asked for nearly $1 trillion to continue the occupation of Iraq.
One job after another is being outsourced, and entire industries are being relocated to countries with cheap labor. Workers here in the U.S. are pressured to accept reduced wages and benefits, and this often includes basic necessities such as sick leave and health care coverage. Average wages and salaries have barely increased over the last 8 years, while the costs of food, energy, housing, and health care have skyrocketed. Our lower standard of living has undermined the fundamental strength of the economy.
Conservative politicians offer tax cuts as the remedy for a sick economy. This does not work, because it does not address the underlying problem. Military expenditures for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with tax cuts for the wealthy, caused massive budget deficits. Foreign investors that purchase that debt have lost confidence in our ability to repay, and now demand higher interest rates. Higher interest rates precipitated the mortgage and banking crisis, and now all of us are suffering the effects of mortgage foreclosures and deflated house prices.
Not so well known is the fact that ballooning federal budget deficits also caused the value of the dollar to collapse, and that in turn led to higher import prices, especially for oil and commodities. The Iraq war has also made the supply of oil from the Middle East much less reliable, and oil companies have passed along the associated “risk premium” to consumers in the price of gas. So if you’re wondering why gas is so expensive, you can blame it partly on the war, record federal budget deficits, and fiscal mismanagement.
This is a national problem, but there are local solutions. What state-level policies could we pursue that would help with this situation? Anything that helps to boost local employment, wages, and/or benefits will be recirculated back into the local economy and create more jobs. We need to create and support sustainable local industries that provide an alternative to Middle East oil: wind and solar energy; biofuels that use local available resources such as wood waste, straw, and manure; energy conservation; and recycling of everything from paper, plastics, and metal to road and construction materials.
Employers should also be required to offer reasonable health care coverage to all employees, with costs shared by employer and employee. Widespread coverage would reduce premiums and medical costs and make our state more competitive in the global economy. Family wages and benefits and good working conditions attract high quality workers and businesses to our state, and provide incentives for higher education and training.
Most of all, we as consumers need to Buy Smart. We need to support local, sustainable, family or employee-owned businesses and avoid the big box stores. There is another post on this topic.
Permalink
