Weekly InDIGESTion: Rodney Tom’s Crusade against Crisis Pregnancy Centers

State Sen. Rodney Tom (D-Bellevue), known affectionately by some as “Turncoat Tom” for his party switch a few years ago, is frustrated because some crisis pregnancy centers don’t offer women the opportunity to kill their unborn children.  He’s offered a bill (SB 6452) to remedy the “problem.”

The bill encourages people to sue crisis pregnancy centers under the Consumer Protection Act if, for example, a center commits such atrocities as not immediately disclosing that they don’t provide or refer abortion services.  It allows an “aggrieved party” to bring a private cause of action against crisis pregnancy centers without limiting who can be be an “aggrieved party”.  Someone can make a claim against a center and be awarded damages without even proving any damages.   The kicker–the bill only applies to pregnancy centers that don’t offer abortion.  Basically, Washington law would require a person to prove damages if they sue an abortion clinic but not if they sue a crisis pregnancy center.

Like many Democrats in the legislature, Tom is in a pickle.  His largest funders (i.e., public employee unions) are mad at the Ds because even with large majorities in both the House and Senate they’ve been unable to muster the gumption to raise taxes rather than cut spending (those pesky voters just keep getting in the way of labor’s agenda).  The largest unions have been threatening to run hard-left candidates against the more “moderate” Democrat legislators, and have even re-routed their usual campaign contributions to a new PAC rather than the caucus campaign funds.  The Democrats need to energize part of their base heading into the 2010 elections.

Voters aren’t in the mood for the sort of tax increases labor is advocating (funny how recessions and a 10% unemployment rate can do that).  Tom needs something to appeal to his liberal base, and this is the magic bullet.  When all else fails, bowing to the Sacrament of Abortion is a sure-fire winner (after all, it’s just a safe, routine medical procedure).

Tom is one of those eastside Democrats who claims the “socially liberal (or moderate), fiscally conservative” mantle.  Yet while the Democrats are grappling with how to fill a $2.6 billion deficit, Tom’s bill actually increases state spending.  Moreover, his voting record on spending only reaffirms what columnist Mark Steyn astutely observed about such folk:

“The reality is that almost every ’socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ politician turns out to be fiscally liberal — in the same way that, if you mix half a pint of vanilla ice cream with half a pint of horse manure, it’s not hard to figure which taste will predominate.”

At best, Tom is short-sighted.  He’s emblematic of the left’s penchant for creating lavish government programs while giving people the “right” to kill off the very generations the county will need to pay for all of it.   The declining birthrates in the West (tempered only by the influx of immigrants) are building a fiscal tsunami on the horizon as the baby boomers begin retiring.

It’s a sad irony for the left–they would be wise to actually encourage breeding so tomorrow there are enough workers/taxpayers to pay for the welfare state they’re building today.  Alas, political expediency triumphs.

Ultimately, Tom’s bill is an effort by the abortion industry and liberal Democrats to drive crisis pregnancy centers out of operation.  How’s that for choice?

State Caught Using Illegal Body Gripping Traps

Gregoire Breaks the Law to Help Denny Heck

Photo courtesy of the AP.

State PDC regulators are crying foul and again Washington’s 3rd Congressional District is in the national news. It turns out Governor Gregoire isn’t just anointing a candidate to replace the Democrat Brian Baird.  Nope, she is apparently also willing to break state campaign finance law, yet again, in a deliberate attempt to gather all the money she can for the State Democrat establishment’s darling, Denny Heck.

Washington State has a pesky little law that prohibits elected officials from raising money for most candidates while the Legislature is in session. Gregoire played her lawyerly self, speaking through a spokesperson and lambasting the long established rules of the game as “ambiguous.” Funny talk coming from the former Attorney General, who should obviously know better. What’s truly ambiguous is whether Chris Gregoire herself is running for re-election; it was a “campaign spokesperson” who she trotted out to mount a half-hearted response.

Heck is a long time Olympia insider who knows better than to pull something like this. He is either not minding the shop or simply willing to defy the law in his quest to be Congressman. I am not surprised Governor Gregoire also wrangled Washington State Insurance Commish Mike Kreidler to sign the fundraising email—afterall, friends are scarce for the Guv in Olympia these days.

What this all boils down to is our Governor and Insurance Commissioner appear willing to sidestep campaign finance laws. That is sure to encourage more confidence and trust in government. But hey, if you’re on your way up or out, why not bend or break the rules, right?

For those keeping track, Gregoire is a repeat offender when it comes to campaign finance law; just Google “Gregoire+PDC.”

Weekly InDIGESTion

Recently state Senator Kevin Ranker (D-San Juan Island) made a statement that’s as far from reality as his home is from the mainland.

Friday marked the first of many difficult decisions that will be required to balance our state’s $2.6 billion budget shortfall. I voted for two bills in the Senate cutting costs totaling nearly $69 million. This decision was one of the toughest I have faced as a legislator…

Last year legislators faced a $5 billion deficit.  This year it’s $2.6 billion.  Even if the legislature cuts its way through all $2.6 billion this year, another $2.8 billion deficit will be waiting for them next year.  Senator Ranker is crying about a $69 million cut.  Forgive me if I don’t cry.

Perhaps this is the same sort of leadership that helped get us into this mess.

The Oregon Trail

Democrats and the interest groups feeding at the public trough were quick to look south with a smile today, and a glimmer of hope undoubtedly twinkled in their eyes as Oregon voters approved Measures 66 and 67.  KIRO’s Dave Ross thinks this may send a message, but I think the details may tell another story.  At the very least, Washingtonians should give serious thought to what the Oregon vote portends here.

Measure 66 raises the state income tax on households earning more than $250,000.  Washington lawmakers have no such option, in all practicality.  Given national trends, majority Democrats in Olympia are unlikely to pass a high-earners income tax this year and income taxes in general have major electoral hurdles to overcome in Washington.  Recent political events compound that problem for Democrats.

The left does, however, however, realize that this idea has the best prospects in the long run.  Why?  Because it’s easy to convince people to increase taxes they don’t have to pay.  That’s the problem with a progressive tax structure–you’re giving people all sorts of free goodies while promising most voters that some other person will pay for it.  The “rich” are a convenient target for the left, which loves to use “values” as a pretense for plundering from the profitable (try talking about “values” in any other context, however, and you’re promptly scolded for trying to impose your views on other people).

Measure 67 raises minimum corporate taxes and increases taxes on “upper level” profits.  Again, this is much more difficult in Washington.  Washington’s Business and Occupation Tax is a tax on gross receipts, so even if your company doesn’t earn a profit the state still gets its cut (how’s that for values?).  Small businesses suffer under this the most, which is why lawmakers are reluctant to raise it because the impact is broadly felt and not just targeted to faceless wealthy corporations that are easily demonized.  Targeted B&O increases could be an option, but the larger companies in Washington would likely put up a strong fight.

Based on conversations I’ve had with some Democratic legislators in Olympia, I think some of them realize that you don’t encourage private sector growth by raising taxes on the very businesses you want to create more jobs.  Oregon’s unemployment rate has been running higher than Washington’s, and the passage of Measure 67 isn’t going to help.  Taking a cue from Tony Soprano, Oregon voters just sent a message to Oregon businesses:  “Grow, and we’ll take a bigger cut.”  There are enough moderate Democrats in Olympia and enough commonsense voters in Washington who know better.

Another factor to consider is Oregon’s odd political landscape.  As Floyd McKay pointed out in a recent Crosscut article,

Oregon is weirdly counter-cyclical in terms of its politics. When I first began covering Oregon politics, Barry Goldwater had just driven the Republican wagon into the ditch in his 1964 presidential campaign and Democrats were resurgent everywhere. Except in Oregon, where Republicans overturned Democratic control of the Legislature and began nearly a decade running the Oregon House. … As Republicans surged in the Reagan years, Oregon became a solidly Democratic state, controlling both houses of the legislature and beginning in 1986 a line of Democratic governors that continues to this day. Republicans recaptured the Oregon House during the Clinton years, and during the administration of George W. Bush Oregon’s Democrats were firmly in control. Oregon seems to swim against the tide.

The Oregon Trail is uniquely Oregonian.  Politicos thinking they can replicate the Measure 66 and 67 vote here in Washington this year should think long and hard before trying.  This is not to say such efforts would surely fail (the internet is clogged with political predictions that didn’t come true), only that what happened south of the Columbia River yesterday doesn’t necessarily mean Washington voters would take the same route.