I attended the Tea Party rally in Everett yesterday. I was pleased to be able to speak. I was disappointed that my comments were cut short; the other speakers didn’t appear to be restrained by the timer to complete their remarks. On the whole, I think Kelly and her volunteers did a great job organizing the event. I know it took a lot of effort and there couldn’t be a more worthy cause. I suspect I will survive.
The event appeared to have 500 to 600 attendees. Even though Tea Partiers are not organized around a specific structure, they are united in the sentiment that they are fed up.
Most will tell you that they aren’t card carrying members of either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party; but as a Republican, their message is more than just a little bit similar to my own; smaller government, lower taxes, accountability and transparency were consistent themes.
We both believe that private sector job growth is a great goal and more likely benchmark for measuring economic recovery. We cannot spend our way to recovery with tax dollars or buy recovery with more federal debt. We will have to work our way out by creating those jobs in the ranks of our small businesses.
Congressional candidates James Watkins running against Jay Inslee in the 1st District and John Koster running against Rick Larsen in the 2nd District rallied the crowd with their comments. Both candidates convey the feeling that there is blood in the water and their opposition knows it. Winning those two seats would be great wins for the R’s.
Pollsters say Republicans are still likely short of regaining the majority by a few seats, but momentum is gathering for our team. Time will tell. In spite of the polls, the crowd was excited by the prospects for the House candidates.
Every candidate speaking yesterday suggested that they were different Republicans than those of years gone by that ended up being “free spenders”. Traditional Republicans were known first and foremost as fiscal conservatives. Getting the Republican candidates back on that track was a consistent theme.
For a Tax Day event, the mood of the crowd was strangely quiet about taxation. My gut tells me that in spite of our feelings about taxes, we are also very concerned about the national debt. The dilemma we all face is deciding which is more important. Spending is the lightening rod issue. Every level of government is spending beyond their means and Tea Partiers are peeved. I suspect that many Democrats are concerned as well.
For the legislative candidates in attendance, the 44th District had the most candidates. There are two Republicans filed for the Steve Hobbs Senate seat; Dave Schmidt and new comer Ryan Ferrie. There are also two Republicans filed to run against Hans Dunshee in the House; Shahram Hadian and myself. Both of these races will be tough battles. In spite of the fact that Dunshee is arguably the most liberal member of the House, he is a tough campaigner.
Mike Hope reported to the crowd about how the just completed session unfolded at the end. He gave the crowd highlights to cheer about and some low lights to moan about. There is no doubt that Mike is the “darling” of the House. He was able to be involved in two law enforcement related bills that made it through to see the light of day in his two sessions. Veteran lawmakers are envious. And Mike is a member of the minority party. That fact makes his accomplishments even more remarkable.
Voters will get a chance to amend the state constitution in the fall in large part because of the efforts of Mike Hope. Good Job Mike.
Oh, and by the way, congratulations to Mike and his wife Sarai on the birth of their new baby boy Noah.
No Loss for Words 
Jobs Bill just Bogus Dunshee Math!
by Steve DanaHans Dunshee’s solution to creating jobs is to put the state into debt for $880 million to create 38,000 “green” jobs that weatherize public buildings. His thinking is that the savings to the public building owners, ie the taxpayers, in reduced energy consumption will justify the cost of the bonds paid over their lifetime by general fund revenue contributions for term of the bonds.
Dunshee must have a rich fantasy life.
From what I can tell, the plan is to hire private sector contractors to do the work; thus creating the 38,000 jobs. Representative Dunshee must have some documentation that supports his plan giving credence to his claims, but I have a few questions.
• Would managing these funds require the creation of additional bureaucracy with a portion of the money?
• Is he proposing to weatherize public schools and other public buildings that are scheduled for replacement, surplus or demolition?
• Would the weatherization investment extend the life of the public building beyond the life of the bonds? What would the term of the bonds be?
• Would the money be made available to public entities on a first come first serve basis?
• Would the money be conditioned on certain companies doing the work?
• If there are more requests for the funds than there are funds available, how do we decide who gets funded and who doesn’t?
The recession has cost thousands of jobs in our state over the past year and a half. People are hurting right now.
• How long would it take for this money to create the first job in the private sector?
In order for this program to be successful, it needs to get people working at sustainable jobs.
• Are these jobs sustainable or are they temporary?
• Will the workers doing these jobs earn wages capable of supporting a family or will they be subsistence level jobs paying $8.55 to $14.00 per hour?
• Will these workers receive benefits? Medical or other?
• Are there companies in existence today that are already doing this work?
• How will this program affect them?
• Will the existing jobs be counted in the 38,000 or are they separate? How did we come up with the 38,000 new job figure?
• How long will this program last?
• Which public entities will be entitled to receive benefits in the program?
With regard to the benefits accrued to the participating building owners
• How did you calculate the energy savings?
An energy audit of a building may make a claim of savings if ten things are changed in that building.
• Does this program start with a company doing energy audits paid with program funds or with their own funds?
• Does the program cover the cost of all the recommended upgrades in the audit or a limited number of them?
• If the program doesn’t pay for all the recommended upgrades, how do we quantify the savings for the work done?
• How do we quantify the claim of savings at the start?
• How do we verify the claim of savings after the program is completed?
• If there is no actual savings, is anyone held accountable?
With regard to the cost of the bonds,
• What is the expected interest rate on the bonds and the term?
• How much of an annual contribution will the state have to make to retire the bonds?
• What will this $880 million actually cost the taxpayers of Washington State?
If we assume that half the money spent will go to materials needed to do the work, then the amount actually spent on labor is half of $880 million or $440 million. But we all know that managers will consume a third of the $440 million. Let’s say managers will get $140 million. That will leave $300 million for the currently unemployed workers, if we can find 38,000 workers with skills to do the work. So the 38,000 workers will divide the $300 million and get about $7900 for their work.
How does that sound to you?
This list of questions is by no means complete. These questions came to me in about ten minutes of contemplation. I can’t help but believe that with a real analyst working on it; a lot more questions will materialize.
When will the government types get the message that government cannot create jobs that improve the economy? Government jobs only add to the problems, not solve the problems.
That is not to say that some government jobs don’t provide a needed function, they do, but they don’t add substance to the economy. Real help for the economy comes with the creation of private sector jobs that manufacture something primarily because they tend to pay family supporting wages. Service sector jobs are only marginally better than government jobs because the wages are typically between minimum wage and $15 per hour, but they do produce contributions to the tax coffers rather than a drain.
If the $880 million was put into a revolving line of credit small businesses could access, then real jobs could be created.
I can name a dozen businesses in my area that are locked in limbo because their lines of credit have been eliminated. These are otherwise thriving businesses being held down because of a lack of working capital.
How do we expect companies to hire new employees or buy new equipment without credit? Business decisions are made with the expectation of profit, not the promise of a tax credit.
Businesses are not looking for a handout; they are just looking for an opportunity to get back to doing what they do best at no cost to the taxpayers.
A line of credit is not a gift of public funds.
Posted in House of Representatives, Legislature, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Washington Jobs | 1 Comment »