Nov. 2, 2009

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

It's been a busy, productive summer and I've enjoyed seeing so many of you at parades, fairs, and other community gatherings over the last few months.  Your continuing comments, suggestions and encouragement mean so much to me.  You are an involved citizenry and I feel blessed and honored to represent you in Olympia.

As you know, I don't often send out newsletters during the summer -- just during session.  But there is so much going on that I thought it would be important to update you on some issues of importance and let you know some of the things I've been involved with over these past few months, and things for you to watch out for in the coming months.

Thanks again for reading my e-newsletter.  And please feel free to pass it along to those you think might be interested.

Sincerely,


Ed Orcutt, State Representative
18th Legislative District

Governor continues to leave door open to tax increases
In a blog post this week by Olympia reporter Austin Jenkins, Gregoire's new chief of staff Jay Manning (who is the former director of the state Department of Ecology) made comments to suggest the administration is leaning towards tax increases to help balance state spending.  If you remember, the Legislature passed a budget last session that closed a $9 billion hole, but used way too much one-time money to do so.  Many of us in the Legislature were concerned that since budget writers failed to address the fundamental problems of overspending, we'd eventually see another billion dollar deficit on the horizon.

Our June forecast left us very tight on the budget which would go into effect just two weeks later.  Now, since the last revenue forecast came out in September, it looks like we'll be facing at least a billion dollar budget hole next year in 2010, and possibly a larger shortfall in the 2011-13 budget!  I guess I'm beginning to feel like a broken record, but until we get back to the priorities of government process and address the overspending of the last four years, we're going to find ourselves in a vicious cycle.  This problem is too big, too important, and too impactful on our families to fix with a Band-aid -- it will take careful, serious and thoughtful surgery to stabilize our budget.

I certainly believe that tax increases are not the answer to our state's budget problems.  Instead, I believe our governor and elected officials should be focusing on getting people back to work and keeping jobs in this state, rather than opening the door to tax increases.

Tax increases seem to be a common them with our current governor.  Gregoire said "no" to tax increases in her 2004 campaign, but raised them in 2005.  She said "no" to tax increases in her 2008 campaign, yet she's again contemplating them for 2010.  She needs to stop talking about taxes and start talking about solutions – solutions to the layoffs, solutions to high taxes.  I guarantee, higher taxes won't solve either problem – it will only make them worse. You can't improve the economy by taking more money out of taxpayers' pockets -- taking more money from those who have less.  And that is the bottom line.

That's one of the reasons why I've signed the Americans for Tax Reform's "State Taxpayer Protection Pledge."  This pledge states that I will: "oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes."  Currently, I'm one of only eight Washington State House members to sign the pledge.  You can bet that I'm going to be working with my colleagues in Olympia these next few months to convince them of the need to protect hard working families from higher taxes.

Testifying against increase in L&I workers compensation rates
I took advantage of the opportunity I had to testify at a public hearing in Vancouver last week against the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries' (L&I) proposed 7.6 percent increase in employer worker compensation rates.  I believe now is not the time to be increasing what amounts to an employer tax on businesses that provide jobs for workers in this state.

I found several flaws in L&I's argument for the increases.  For one, he department has indicated their proposed increase in workers' compensation rates will bring in about $120 million.  But we have to remember where this money comes from -- the economy.  Whether it comes out of employee or employer pockets, the fact is, it's money out of the economy which is something we can ill afford. The department also says they need the rate increase because there are fewer premiums being paid due to fewer hours being worked.  But if there are fewer hours being worked, isn't there less risk of people being injured on the job?  And, if fewer hours being worked is a problem, won't we be making the problem worse by increasing rates when that leads to yet more layoffs?  And, won't the increase in workers' compensation rates also delay employers' ability to bring back displaced workers?

During my testimony, I also questioned the status of the L&I reserve account, specifically wanting to know how the approval or rejection of the rate increase would affect the reserve account.  When L&I officials couldn't answer that question, I was even more concerned.  How can they propose taking more money from employers without knowing the dynamics of the reserve account?  It makes me, and the many employers in our state, wonder if L&I is being truthful and upfront in making their case for the rate increase.

I would like to see reforms in the system with more accountability and more fraud protections before the department takes more money from employers.  Judging from the testimony I heard this week, it's obvious that there is too much fraud and mismanagement going on within the system.  We need to fix the problems and hold the agency accountable before asking for more money from employers who are struggling to keep the employees they have.

It's pretty clear that Boeing's recent announcement that they're moving their new assembly line to South Carolina is due in part to problems in the L&I workers compensation program.  Employers have been telling officials for years that there are problems that need to be addressed.  And now, with one of the state's largest employers moving part of their operation to South Carolina, one wonders if this isn't the floodgates opening to see more precious jobs move to more job-friendly states.

Dam Breaching - No means No!
Anybody else tired of Seattle environmental elitists telling the rest of us how to live?  Congressman Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, has introduced legislation in Congress to breach Snake River dams in an effort to protect salmon, which is quickly gaining a favorable eye from the Obama Administration.  Really?  We're going to go down this road again?  Don't these guys get it that no means NO?!

Our region depends upon the affordable hydro power, the agricultural irrigation, and the recreational opportunities these dams provide.  Our clean, efficient, RENEWABLE and carbon-neutral hydro power is the envy of every state in this nation.  Why are we even considering the possibility of breaching the dams?

And it's not like our state has been sitting around doing nothing in terms of trying to protect fish.  In fact, we're seeing record and near-record numbers of returning salmon in several different salmon runs.  The habitat management, the hatchery efforts, and better stream flow management are all paying off.

Especially during these tough economic times, government should adhere to the old adage of "do no harm" to jobs and employers.  Breaching just one dam would have a devastating effect upon our local economies and our ability to attract and retain jobs.  But there are those who will continue to demand more in terms of environmental protections.  These are the people who prioritize fish over families and extreme environmentalism before gainful employment.

New Building Code regulations could drastically increase cost of housing
During the 2009 session, the Legislature approved a measure that implements new energy building codes.  Senate Bill 5854 would incrementally increase energy codes for homes and buildings, beginning in 2013, with the goal of a 70 percent reduction in energy consumption by 2031.

Home energy efficiency is certainly a laudable goal.  But with any legislation, impacts to people and the costs versus benefits must be carefully considered.  Those of us who opposed this bill were concerned these new, overly restrictive codes could impact construction and affordability of housing for families.  To ease those worries, the bill required the Washington State Building Code Council to incrementally advance the codes over an 18-year period.

Although the bill was signed into law, our concerns reached new heights when, in May, the governor directed the State Building Code Council to accelerate the timeline to require a 30 percent energy-use reduction for buildings by July 2010.  This directive was issued without an economic impact statement which would have measured the effects to the housing industry and to jobs.

Ramping up energy codes by 30 percent over 10 months is not only unrealistic -- it's unattainable.  The building industry has lost 47,750 construction jobs since 2007.  At a time when state unemployment is near a record high, I'm concerned the proposed new codes could potentially eliminate more jobs. How would this affect average families? Imagine having to pay 10, 20 or even 30 percent more for a home because of new regulations. In this economy, that puts affordability out of reach for many people. Consider also that any savings in energy costs would be negated by the higher costs consumers must pay up front. Even if you rent, your costs could go up if your landlord is forced to pay more.

This bill also prohibits state agencies from leasing or renewing leases of buildings unless the owner agrees to upgrade to new energy efficiency standards. This could mean thousands of dollars in unaffordable out-of-pocket costs, leaving many leasable buildings vacant.  And yet, this could be the tip of the iceberg. Imagine that before you sell your home, you would have to meet new, expensive energy codes, and your home would have to be inspected and approved by the state before the sale is allowed. This too, has been under discussion in the Legislature, and a direction I adamantly oppose.

The council is taking public comments regarding the new codes and will review citizen input.  I encourage you to get involved and voice your opinion.  Get more information from the council's Web site at: www.sbcc.wa.gov or submit your comments to: State Building Code Council, P.O. Box 42525, Olympia, WA 98504-2525.

State Parks "Opt-Out" fee goes into effect...
Here is an updated look at what your vehicle license renewal now looks like.  The top is how it used to be; the bottom is how it looks since the Legislature changed from the "opt-in" fee to an "opt-out" fee.  Citizens that want to donate money to our state parks have been able to do so for years.  Now, unless you very specifically check the box and subtract the donation yourself, you'll be charged with a fee that you otherwise may not have wanted to pay.

It is a dishonest way to raise money for state parks, in my view.  The state says it will raise more money this way, but it's still wrong.  So, if you want to donate money to our state parks, do nothing.  If you can't afford to, don't forget to check the box as seen below:

Visit my Website for further information and news
For more information on these and other issues, please visit my Web site.  You can also contact me via e-mail or sign-up for my E-newsletter.