Some Democrats and their far-left supporters are not happy with the state Senate’s bi-partisan transportation package. The Environmental Priorities Coalition (EPC) called the bill a “poison pill” in a recent email, picking up on lefty blog Publicola’s description of the package.
Republicans’ insistence that the compromise package contain a safeguard against Jay Inslee imposing a fuel mandate by executive order is the primary cause of the Left’s displeasure. As Shift reported, the package includes a provision that would pull funding from transit if the state were to adopt a fuel mandate. If the mandate were adopted, “all non-bondable revenues — such as fee-based money going toward transit and bike paths — would instead be moved into the main transportation account.”
According to the EPC, the safeguard would “force Governor Inslee and the Legislature to choose between funding for transit or a clean fuels standard that reduces air pollution from cars” and is, therefore, a “poison pill.” The extreme environmental group further claims that the bill “undermines the public interest by pitting important environmental priorities [i.e. transit and a fuel mandate] against each other” and urges their supporters to tell their legislators not to support the bill.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the far-left’s vendetta against the state Senate’s transportation package is their insistence that no ground is given—Democrats will not accept the reality of compromise, they want it all. The state Senate is controlled by Republicans and the state House by Democrats, passing a needed transportation package will require a bi-partisan effort. That means compromise, which means no side will walk away completely happy.
Democrats’ greediness—their all-or-nothing approach—only reveals the powerful chock hold they have held our state in for far too long. Democrats have grown used getting their way without compromise or check on their power, the current poor condition of transportation in our state is a testament to their control.
During the 2014 legislative session, Democrats held a transportation package hostage to meeting all their demands. Democrats—with the help of Jay Inslee—effectively sabotaged efforts to pass a transportation package then, twisting reality, blamed Republicans. That cannot happen this time around, Democrats must be held accountable for their refusal to compromise at the expense of a needed transportation package.
The reforms Republicans are asking for are not improbable, hyper-partisan or extreme. This weekend, the state Senate Transportation Committee will hear the following reforms:
- No additional funding for Bertha cost overruns
- Making congestion relief a priority
- Protecting transportation dollars via sales tax reform
- Requiring the vote of the people for additional Sound Transit funding
- Allowing for competitive bids for ferry construction, would save millions
- Protects environmental clean up funds
- Lower future project costs via red tape relief, bringing labor costs to federal standards
- Prioritizing projects by job growth and economic benefits to local communities
Why isn’t the gas tax ALSO being made a vote of the people?
The state Senate is controlled by Republicans and the state House by Democrats, passing a needed transportation package will require a bi-partisan effort.
The “bi-partisan” Senate Majority Coalition completely, utterly, and totally failed to pass a transportation package over the last two years, while the Democratically-controlled House did so. Maybe the Senate should start by considering that package, instead of embarking on yet another effort?
This weekend, the state Senate Transportation Committee will hear the following reforms:
Anything in there about “reforms” to the Senate, so it actually passes a transport package, or will it all be just more whining about how *other* state employees need to work more efficiently?
Lower future project costs via red tape relief, bringing labor costs to federal standards
In other, clear words, chipping away at the state’s minimum wage. That’s not “red tape relief,” that’s violating the clearly-expressed view of the people, when we passed I-688.
Why isn’t the gas tax ALSO being made a vote of the people?
The road-hungry Republicans can’t afford to allow that. If the vote passes in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett, but fails overall because of rejection in Eastern Washington, their package fails, and politicians in the Sound Transit region will know what polling results already show — we voters here will vote to tax ourselves for better mass transit. We’ll then do just that, depriving the state of tax money needed for the roads the Republicans want built.
“The “bi-partisan” Senate Majority Coalition completely, utterly, and totally failed to pass a transportation package over the last two years”
Really?
Democrat Sen. Tracey Eide, co-chair of the Transportation Committee, actually admitted to preventing the transportation bill from coming to a vote because she needed “leverage” for her own package, which involved raising taxes to fund new road, transit and pedestrian projects without any WSDOT reforms. She publically announced, “I get a package, [then] we’ll hear reforms. … It’s the only leverage I have.” Kinda tough to pass something that Democrats won’t let come to a vote.
“In other, clear words, chipping away at the state’s minimum wage. That’s not “red tape relief,” that’s violating the clearly-expressed view of the people, when we passed I-688″
Are you actually naive enough that you think anybody building roads is making minimum wage? And show me where $15 NOW is in the text of I-688. I missed that part.
“If the vote passes in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett, but fails overall because of rejection in Eastern Washington”
Math isn’t one of your strengths is it? If any state-wide vote passes in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma and Everett, there is no chance of it not passing, regardless of what anybody east of the Cascades does
Perhaps you need to understand what “majority,” as in “Senate Majority Coalition,” means. Maybe then you wouldn’t fall for obvious lies, like the ones you’ve here regurgitated. A member of the minority, like Sen. Eide was, couldn’t prevent any item from coming to a vote, because scheduling votes is a function of the majority.
(Sen. Eide has since retired. Any word on which Democrat the Republicans will blame for any upcoming failures? With their style of “governing,” having their scapegoat pre-selected is a huge requirement.)
Are you actually naive enough that you think anybody building roads is making minimum wage?
No, but the anonymous author(s) of this post might be. Otherwise, I don’t know what they meant by, “…bringing labor costs to federal standards” Maybe reducing job-site safety standards?
If any state-wide vote passes in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma and Everett, there is no chance of it not passing, regardless of what anybody east of the Cascades does
Still having trouble with the concept of “majority,” I see. A ballot measure can pass in those places by very slender majorities, but fail state-wide due to overwhelming opposition elsewhere. A roads-heavy transport package might do just that, due to support for transit in Western Washington, and TAX BAD in Eastern Washington.
Look, the road-hungry Republicans are trying to take tax money from voters who want to build transit, and spend it on building roads. Their only leverage is a tiny margin of majority in the Senate. That’s got to be difficult, and having the Democrats describe this accurately just adds to their considerable frustration.
“I don’t know what they meant by, “…bringing labor costs to federal standards” Maybe reducing job-site safety standards?”
Sure, genius. As if reducing job-site safety standards would have any bearing on labor costs. You just threw that out as a pathetic jab at Republicans. Federal highway projects exempt some, not all, positions from prevailing wage. In Washington every job on every road and bridge project is prevailing (union) wage. Democrats like this. It keeps their campaign coffers full. Costs taxpayers more? Sure, but Democrats don’t care about that as long as the unions are happy. You saw “bringing labor costs to federal standards” and immediately thought it was about lowering the minimum wage and like a good little Sawrantist, you went to Defcon5, even trotting out I-688. Way to go, Comrade
As if reducing job-site safety standards would have any bearing on labor costs.
I originally thought that bullet point might refer to the ongoing attempt by Republicans in our Senate to chip away at our state’s minimum wage. And, as you finally admitted, the entire purpose is indeed to pay lower wages, without regard to possible consequences for our infrastructure. As we all know, the conservative solution to every “problem” begins with cutting someone else’s wages. (H/t to Roger Rabbit.)
And, the obsession with Sawant continues. This post has nothing to do with Seattle’s minimum wage, and nobody had mentioned any Council Member until you did.
You and I know that lowering our state’s minimum wage or safety standards won’t save any money. That doesn’t mean the anonymous writer(s) here know — or care — as to whether anything they post has any connection to any external reality.
“the entire purpose is indeed to pay lower wages, without regard to possible consequences for our infrastructure”
There is no possible consequences to our infrastructure by not paying a janitor $40/hr union scale. We just get more bang for highway buck, but you don’t want that.
“As communists all know, the conservative solution to every “problem” begins with cutting someone else’s wages” Fixed it for ya.
Toddle on now like a good little Sawrantist, but keep a sharp eye out for attacks on your princess.
There is no possible consequences to our infrastructure …
“You get what you pay for,” and “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” have been replaced by, “wishing makes it so!”
Fixed it for ya.
So, there are not multiple bills in our Republican-controlled Senate, each seeking to reduce the wages of working Washingtonians? (Or is the problem that “communists” have eyes and a brain?)
Toddle on now like a good little Sawrantist, but keep a sharp eye out for attacks on your princess.
Once again, in a thread not concerned with Seattle’s City Council, you’ve managed to mention one specific Council Member. What’s the deal?
You just don’t want to admit you saw “bringing labor costs to Federal standards” and, without having a clue what it meant, perceived it as an attack on your princess and came back with a full court press about minimum wage.
Neither of us really know what it means, as it’s very vague. As I’ve already written, I thought it was connected to another attempt to chip away at the minimum wage in our state. Maybe it isn’t; I really don’t know.
As for an “attack on your princess,” I’ll say it again: you’re the only one here mentioning her. I-688, if it is involved here, has nothing to do with the Seattle City Council.
I knew exactly what it meant the first time I read it. “In other clear words”, your handlers told you to lash out at Republicans with a minimum wage screed any time you see “labor costs” or a related phrase.
I had some idea of what that sentence fragment might have meant — if, indeed, it had any meaning at all — and I gave my idea. I admit I may have been wrong, that they instead meant to cut wages other than our state’s minimum wage. You may be closer to the mark than was I.
(Perhaps you who are more familiar with the “starving our way to prosperity” arguments can help the rest of us out? Maybe put together a “cut someone else’s wages tip sheet,” which could tell us whose of other people’s wages we can cut to secure which economic benefits to ourselves? Think of it as a one-page version of those guides the monks and priests wrote on demons and angels, once upon a time.)
Sawant is the only open socialist on the all socialist council leading Seattle into the toilet. There’s no need to mention the others unless it somehow makes you wet your pants if you don’t get your way, like any whiny liberal would do.
Any luck with that “basic math” problem, of explaining how Washington state’s high minimum wage co-relates to lower unemployment, higher growth, and less poverty? If you’re still having trouble, we could arrange remedial arithmetic for you, perhaps via Common Core. Please let us know.
Your obsession with minimum wage means you want fewer jobs created. Why the continued war on the poor that is at the root of the Democrats? The mandated minimum wage creates havoc in business and raises not only their costs to do business but the cost of living for those it’s meant to help. It’s called ’cause and effect’. It’s basic math, something that the Democrat party hate, which is why they’re so wholeheartedly supporting Common Core which is another effort to destroy our education but that’s another topic for another day.
Your obsession with minimum wage means you want fewer jobs created.
What’s the connection between minimum wage and creation of jobs?
Bloomberg News:
When Washington residents voted in 1998 to raise the state’s minimum wage and link it to the cost of living, opponents warned the measure would be a job-killer. The prediction hasn’t been borne out.
In the 15 years that followed, the state’s minimum wage climbed to $9.32 — the highest in the country. Meanwhile job growth continued at an average 0.8 percent annual pace, 0.3 percentage point above the national rate. Payrolls at Washington’s restaurants and bars, portrayed as particularly vulnerable to higher wage costs, expanded by 21 percent. Poverty has trailed the U.S. level for at least seven years.
CNN:
In Washington state, small businesses are adding jobs faster than any other state in the country, according to a report from Paychex and IHS.
So, what’s the connection, again?
The mandated minimum wage creates havoc in business and raises not only their costs to do business but the cost of living for those it’s meant to help. It’s called ’cause and effect’.
Please do explain the ’cause and effect’ between fifteen consecutive years of raising our state’s minimum wage, and Washington state’s economic performance over that time. Please do explain how Washington’s having the highest minimum wage of any state caused us to have the largest job growth by small business of anywhere in the country. You should have no problem; after all, “It’s basic math.”
“A member of the minority, like Sen. Eide was, couldn’t prevent any item from coming to a vote, because scheduling votes is a function of the majority”
Then why would she say she would do that? Was she lying? After all, she is a Democrat. It’s what you do best.
First, I don’t actually believe what a Republican attack site claims any Democrat said, or that she said it in the context they claimed. The fact remains that the majority in an American legislative body controls the agenda for that body; every person with an American high school diploma is supposed to know this. Republicans seized majority power in our state’s Senate, then couldn’t pass a transportation bill, then blamed a retiring Democrat for their own failure: pathetic all the way through.
Second, I’m not a Democrat, and never have been, for the simple reason they are not liberal enough for me.
So a committee chair can’t kill a bill before it ever gets near the floor for a vote? Sounds like a woefully ignorant comrade with a high school diploma to me.
She was, at best, a co-chair of that committee, and even if she held that title, she was subject to the whim of the majority. Do you really not know what “Senate Majority Coalition” meant, or are you just being obtuse, so you can blame their failure on someone who has since returned to running her business?
If they didn’t want responsibility for failure, they should not have seized power in a sleazy backroom deal which denied the will of the voters.
Nobody likes you. Take your liberal bull$hit & go spew it to the progressive sheepople who follow your Deer Leeder Inslee.
What’s a “chock hold?”
Those bastard Republicans, trying to do that common sense stuff… It just makes sense, that why it’s wrong… ???
Why exactly do we need this transportation package at all? The money the state wasted on big Bertha and converting all the bridges and HOVs to pay lanes and millions to provide more bike paths has not done one thing to make my commute any easier.
When taking competitive bids for ferry construction, keep in mind the rebate we get when they are built in state. The builder pays use tax on materials purchased to build the boat and pays B&O taxes. The emplyees pay sales taxes on goods they buy with the pay they get. An out of state builder returns nothing to back to our state. A lower bid by an out of state company can easily cost this state much more than a higher bid by an in state company after figuring in the rebate the in state company gets the state.