The headline of the editorial in the Everett Herald on Wednesday January 12, 2011 says
“A chance for bipartisanship”
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110112/OPINION01/701129975/-1/OPINION
then it goes on to say that eliminating the supermajority requirement for amendments to budget bills passed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee would now only require a simple majority rather than the supermajority required for nearly a hundred years.
It is the Herald’s view that even though budget bills coming out of the Ways and Means Committee would still be controlled by the majority party being able to amend them with a simple majority would encourage bipartisanship because the vote threshold for passage would be lower. But the amendments would not address core problems, they would be window dressing on a bad bill to buy votes.
The reason the Democrats want to create the appearance of easy bipartisanship is to spread the blame when the legislature has to eventually balance their budget.
In my view, the differences between the core values of the parties makes it difficult to propose solutions at the amendment level. I believe that solutions Republicans might offer would probably require that the state step back to core services. How well we fund education, public safety and transportation will be determined by how many other pools of money we have to create for (perhaps) non-essential services.
In order to adequately fund essential state services we need to first identify those that are mandated by the constitution and those that are not. Then prioritize those departments or programs that are not mandated so we can begin eliminating whole departments and bureaucracies so there is funding for the services remaining.
Under-funding all existing departments just means we’re spending money to maintain management structures without fulfilling a mission. Maintaining a department that cannot deliver the product is just wasting money. These are our likely candidates for elimination. With these departments on chopping block, we need to have a vigorous debate about the cost/benefit of each then decide. If we are looking for bipartisanship, this is the level where it should come into play.
Certainly there will be Washington citizens that will be adversely impacted for the long term by this plan. Democrats object to this strategy since the “nanny state” promises they make require that citizens have something to hang their hope on. If you eliminate a whole department, the expectation of restoration is reduced and hope is lost.
It is not that I don’t have feelings for those folks, I do, but it has to do with fairness for everyone in our state.
If the Herald editorial board wants to encourage bipartisanship, they need to recognize the basis for compromise between the two parties won’t happen at the superficial amendment level on Ways and Means budget bills.
No Loss for Words 
The Secret Ballot Protection Act
by Steve DanaI lifted this post from www.laborunionreport.com this morning. I thought it was noteworthy. Everyone should endorse this plan with a vote.
The Secret Ballot Protection Act: It’s Time to Make it Law.
January 17, 2011
By Laborunionreport
Let’s put this whole debate about card-check to bed once and for all. It’s time to pass the Secret Ballot Protection Act.
On Friday, the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board threatened to sue the states of Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah, if any (or all) of them attempt to enforce the recent voter-approved measures in their states that guarantee workers the right to a secret-ballot election.
The states were also advised that the Board has authorized the Acting General Counsel to file lawsuits in federal court, if necessary, to enjoin them from enforcing the laws.
As unions have spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying Democrat politicians to pass the job-killing and hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act, it is natural that the union-controlled NLRB would come down against the states for trying to ensure secret-ballots for workers. However, as the NLRB recently affirmed that it is legal for a union and employer to bargain even before a union is recognized in exchange for card-check, workers’ rights are being seriously eroded under the current regime.
There is, however, a way in which this entire issue can be ended once and for all for the entire nation. That is through the passage of the Secret Ballot Protection Act.
Here is the entire bill. It is as simple as it is short.
Most Americans (78%) believe that “secret ballot elections are the most democratic method of choosing representation, while 87 percent agree that ‘every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union.’” Unions and the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board would prefer rather do away with secret-ballots.
Let’s put an end to the games and push Congress to enact the law to protect Americans’ right to a secret ballot.
If Democrats don’t want to allow Americans to have secret-ballot votes on whether to become unionized or not, let them go on record (publicly) and vote against secret-ballots. If President Obama doesn’t want Americans to have the right to a secret-ballot vote on unionization, then let him veto it…publicly.
Let’s put a stop to the attempts to kill secret-ballot elections and get the Secret Ballot Protection Act made into law.
It’s really that simple.
Posted in Political commentary | Leave a Comment »