The House is currently debating SB 5659, the "family leave" scam.
Rep. Schindler (R-Spokane): "Taking from one family to give to another is not pro-family"
Rep. Walsh (R-Walla Walla): "One of the reasons I'm a Republican is because I'm sick and tired of government not enabling families by not instilling a sense of responsibility"
UPDATE: It passed on a nearly party-line 61-36
Dems voting NO: Lantz, Linville, Takko, Wallace
Republicans voting YES: (Campbell), Jarrett, McDonald, Priest
UPDATE 2: Rep. Cary Condotta (R-Wenatchee), said in a statement: "the bill went from bad to worse ... the state will create this new wage-replacement benefit, yet there's no solid plan on how it will be administered or what it will cost ... The bottom line is, this bill doesn't make sense - we're going to do it, but we have no idea how?"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 13, 2007 05:09 PM | Email ThisThis scam is wrong on so many levels. Why can't at least half of our legislators think this clearly?
Posted by: Stuart Mill on April 13, 2007 05:07 PMhttp://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/schindler
Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2007 05:17 PMI also wonder if the Democrats realize there will be an unintended consequence due to this bill. I foresee employers in the low wage field to hire more part time employees so they would not have that many if any who would qualify. Of course this will not work for the professional industry, but it would work for the likes of typical minimum wage jobs.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 13, 2007 05:19 PMIt is just another huge government give away and another nose in the tent of the family paycheck and taxpayer.
It will tax us another 100 million, 30 million of which will be spent hiring 30 more state employees, with all associated expenses. And this is just initially! It is just the beginning of a massive never ending growing program designed to distribute your paycheck to someone else.
It has noting at all to do with family leave, it has everything to do with massive new taxing scheme.
Say Hell no to this one, it has nothing at all to do with family leave.
The best way to fight this monstrosity is to label it an income tax and keep hammering on that point.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 13, 2007 07:13 PMThose who voted for this bill proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are financially irresponsible and how easy it is to spend other people's money. What do we want to do about this ??
Those who voted for this bill proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are financially irresponsible and how easy it is to spend other people's money. What do we want to do about this ??
America is losing her identity.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 13, 2007 09:50 PMFamily Leave Bill = Income Tax.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 13, 2007 10:44 PMWe never had to pay for a crab permit for 180 yrs, then they started it at 4 bucks now it is 11 bucks.
The Sound transit was a few billion, now they want 16 billion more.
Sound familiar?
If you vote for this tiny family leave bill, you have just authorized a massive income tax through the back door. They had to find a feel good idea to get the vote they need, but they won't ask when stealing more of you hard earned money for their socialism.
Beware of this one.
Posted by: Gs on April 13, 2007 11:01 PMThe cons are pro business, period. Corporate profits at any cost. They can't ship our jobs overseas, and give "free trade" advantages to China, and India fast enough. Don't even mention Dubai....
When is the last time a CEO went to prison for knowingly hiring illegal workers? Yeah right, ain't gonna happen, even though it is illegal. That is what happens when you have an elephant sitting on one side of the scales of justice, as it now appears with the prosecutor scandal.
As long as the ruling class gets to keep more of the spoils, and get every single advantage handed to them, everything is just hunky dory right?
Education, health care, childcare, head start, affordable prescription drugs, good jobs, security in any aspect of life, and a living wage for all workers is directly in the way of the GOP platform.
I am sure most of you agree, if there are only a few good jobs, most of the money spent on education is wasted. Someday you will need a PHD to be a Wal Mart greeter, or burger flipper.....
Just be honest cons. Say you hate families. Just say it. Assisting poor families costs valuable tax dollars that could be better spent on brand new guns! All families are good for is creating children, where enlisting to fight needless wars against non threatening nations is their only chance of getting and education.
Posted by: Facts on April 14, 2007 07:48 AMWould you care to address the legislation under discussion, jackass?
Posted by: jimg on April 14, 2007 08:40 AM
Facts can't. It's to hard for him the think that way.
The war on poor families is being waged in a thousand different places by the GOP, and this is only one case. Face it. All to help the families of people like Buffet, Gates, and the rest. If you make less than $200,000 a year and vote for Republicons you need to check in somewhere.
Just don't think I love welfare, and people not being responsible Walsh. I would rather see workfare, and people having babies while on assistance seeing their checks cut off. It is up to cowards like yourself to take the jobs out of China and stick them in back in Walla Walla where they belonged in the first place. Flat world freak.
Walsh is using "responsibility" as a platform, but would never talk about how responsible you can be working 2 low paying jobs, having no health care, or savings, and trying to make ends meet at the same time every tax, bill, and fee is being increased to offset the taxes the billionaires, and corporations are not paying on their windfall profits. If you fail, and have to claim bankruptcy because a kid got sick, and you had to pre pay for their medical care, with the bankruptcy bill the banks can hound you forever. Way to go banks!
We all see these additional costs when we do our budgets. Why is it that only I would want to address the effects of cutting capitol gains taxes in half? Repealing the estate tax? Bermuda corporations? Not to mention the crumbs Bush's 3 tax cuts gave to the middle class, when it was the top 1% that got the most benefit.
Don't even get me started on the 2 trillion dollar war for a pack of lies.
Just remember.
All Facts Support My Positions.
Reality is reality, whether you accept it or not.
Posted by: Facts on April 14, 2007 09:31 AMThe damage has yet to take its toll. Business as we know it ceases when the elected governor signs off on the Democratic social agenda.
The nanny state is growing up.
To all those readers that think the R's are against the family - good luck in your practice of self deception. You will discover the high costs of the nanny state.
There are reasons why Rolls Royce jet engines are made in SC and shipped to Everett. There are reason that Boeing moved out of Washington. Quality jobs are leaving, never to be replaced.
People don't work for poor people. Business people, not the government, provide the jobs and careers. And business people work where their investments earn the highest ROI. Our state in the dead-end left corner of the map is not known to be business friendly. The actions of your elected representative enhanced the unfriendly business reputation that will ultimately translate to fewer jobs and less willing workers.
Businesses do vote with their feet.
I don't like hypocrites, and I don't like vomit.
Every single piece of major legislation the Republicon controlled congress passed, and Bush signed into law has hurt families overall.
The bankruptcy bill, tort reform, prescription drug benefit, and the list goes on, and on.
Did your credit card rates drop after the bankruptcy bill passed? Did your health insurance bill go down once the tort reform bill passed? Did you know medicare pays 10 times as much for medications on average than the Veterans Administration? Your tax dollars at work padding Merck, and Phizer's bottom line.
My parents have to drive to Canada to be able to afford their medication on their fixed income.
All this is fine with the cons right?
Let our state's hypocrite legislators grandstand all they want. The people in this state are catching on fast, and even more of these con people will be unemployed come November '08....
Half of what the Democrats do is a joke, I agree. At least they are trying to make "all" Washingtonians lives better, and not just the ruling class. It's hard work....
Posted by: Facts on April 14, 2007 09:51 AMYou are not a deep thinker by nature, are you?
The Pubs made it more difficult to file bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that a person or company does not have enough money to pay their debts, and a significant portion of that burdon will be born by.... whom? Everyone else. Consumers. Families. You can choose to focus on the bankrupt and say "Oh, poor family." But Pubs prefer to look at all the families and conclude it is not "our" burdon to clean up after "their" mistake. We can choose to help out our brother, but we should not be forced to get involved.
Tort reform... same arguments. You are overly focused on the poor, innocent victim with a bowel resection, or lap burns from too hot coffee. Again, if you have sufficient pity and mercy, reach out personally to help alleviate the suffering. But don't force everyone to do what you choose and they do not.
Prescription drug benefit... it was all about giving to the old folks. I am cynical and believe it was intended to buy votes from us geezers, and our loved ones who are overly invested emotionally (like yourself), but the purpose was to provide relief, counter to your protestations.
And the reasons your parents can find cheaper drugs in Canada is that the Canadian government put a cap on the price of drugs that is lower than what the market would naturally bear, and the difference is being subsidized by AMERICAN FAMILIES.
Facts, the government simply cannot make the lives of "all" better, and they will destroy our economy, and our society, by trying. Grow up.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 14, 2007 10:11 AMI think if a state gives any industry, or business "special" incentives, then they should give the same incentives to all businesses big and small. Why is special treatment only good for big businesses?
We are getting screwed by the ROI ideology snuff. The bottom line trumps all, no matter how many lives get ruined, or politicians have to be bought and paid for by K-Street lobbyists.
Personally I don't mind taking care of people in need, and making it possible for them to take care of themselves someday. It may be you that is ran over by a drunk 15 year old car thief someday.You may need some help after the hospital eats your entire life's savings after your insurance company tells you to get lost......
Posted by: Facts on April 14, 2007 10:36 AMYou make wonderful arguments, and you do have a point, but I believe our politicians represent "all" of us, and are required to attempt to make "all" our lives better. It is their job.
The problem is the fact that your statements are a complete contradiction. Tort reform, the bankruptcy bill, and the prescription drug benefit were all pushed hard by the industries that would increase their profits if this legislation passed. Greater corporate profits is not a bad thing by itself, but only the people fortunate enough to be able to buy stocks benefit. The other 1/3 of Americans are just victimized by the same corporations, coupled with their own bad choices, and worse health issues, or bad luck, with even less protection.
Still part of the class war, and it is large corporations and the ruling class that owns over 50% of the stock versus the other 90% of Americans. Which side are you on?
Posted by: Facts on April 14, 2007 10:50 AMOnce again you have proven yourself to lack facts and be full of opinion.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 14, 2007 02:38 PMCliff. Just because Nike moved their tennis shoe manufacturing to asia, did they lower their shoe prices because their manufacturing cost dropped?
Heck no.
We get charged what the market will bear. The amount of profit we allow the companies is all that is passed on, not "cost" or any cost savings.
I do like how you use the word Charity though Cliff. What will happen if it is you that is in the wheelchair, and no one wants to contribute to "charity" to help you?
All it takes is one, or two mistakes, and your nest egg gets scrambled, and fed to the vultures no matter how hard you work, and how much you save. Doesn't it make you feel better that some Americans think we are all in this together, and need to help each other out from time to time, rather than a winner take all mentality?
Don't forget to compare "administrative costs" to "profit" when a private sector company is doing the same service as a government agency for profit LIKE AT WALTER REED HOSPITAL.
I do not know any tort attorneys, but I do have a family member that was taking Vioxx. What if she died of a heart attack while the manufacturer was hiding the risks of this drug? It quickly becomes about graveyards, and mourning, and not lawsuits.
When the Talking Points hit me, it is like a rotten egg hitting a foot thick stainless steel wall. Splat.
For that matter, can you Cliff, or any of your friends name any legislation passed recently that truly did help "families" at the expense of the ruling class or large corporations.
I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Facts on April 14, 2007 02:52 PMIt appears from your statements in this thread that you have a reasonable position on what you value though I take exception to your position that rebublicans do not favor families. I disagree with your broad brush painting of us and of your questioning motives. To be honest, I have the problems when republicans do the same thing to liberals. It makes it hard to have real debates about both the idologies AND the issues. I am late to this thread, so maybe the opportunity is not there, but it would be interesting to hold a real, invective-free debate.
Here are some points I want to make about some of your remarks:
The cons are pro business, period. Corporate profits at any cost. They can't ship our jobs overseas, and give "free trade" advantages to China, and India fast enough. Don't even mention Dubai....
Jobs over seas help real people over seas. It is a problem if we create too much of a vacuum in this country, but ultimately, a world that is working is going to create net gains across the globe. I balance the poverty in other countries if we did not export jobs verses the loss of livelihood in this country. It is not a perfect system, and there will be displacements, so I can understand the concern for those Americans that lose their work. The free market IS a scary place to be, but it also is the most efficient in the long term. It is a balance. People will always land at various points on the continuum.
When is the last time a CEO went to prison for knowingly hiring illegal workers? Yeah right, ain't gonna happen, even though it is illegal. That is what happens when you have an elephant sitting on one side of the scales of justice, as it now appears with the prosecutor scandal.
This does not wash with me. I have seen almost no difference between Dems and Repubs when it comes to "protecting" the powerful that happen to be their supporters. It is not a idological issue, it is a matter of how power is gained, and bartered in this country. Both sides are equally corrupt in this area.
Education, health care, childcare, head start, affordable prescription drugs, good jobs, security in any aspect of life, and a living wage for all workers is directly in the way of the GOP platform.
This is a mixed bag. I think the democrats are more interested in protecting their power base than in improving education, and republicans in dismantling the Dems powerbase than in improving education, but I would say that the R's plan is much more likely to improve education than the proven failure of the D's plan.
R's lean toward market forces on health care (and many other issues) because it is at their core, ideologically, just as D's ideologically disdain anything that hints of risk when it comes to key health/life issues. I think that government social programs are ultimately destructive and need to be minimized, and if all the people who really wanted to help the disadvantaged actually chose too, there would be little need for government programs.
R's have no problem with living wages, they have a problem with the economics of artifically elevated wages. This is a key debate point. Artifically raised wages will reduce jobs, it is an econ 101 concept of price verses supply. It will acutally marginalize the most vulnerable workers, the ones it was intended to help. Low wage jobs serve a purpose and are a way for people to acutally get on the ladder of succcess. Raising the bar keeps some off becuase they can become unemployable at higher wages at the start. The issue of "living wage" is also a myth in that very few families are in the postion of needing that help and most of those who are don't stay there very long. With experience and skill comes more responsibility and better wages. most min wage people are promoted quickly as they prove themselves but would never be hired in the higher job without the experience. If there are people stuck at low wages, there would have to be better ways of addressing it than pricing them right out of their job.
Just don't think I love welfare, and people not being responsible Walsh. I would rather see workfare, and people having babies while on assistance seeing their checks cut off. It is up to cowards like yourself to take the jobs out of China and stick them in back in Walla Walla where they belonged in the first place. Flat world freak.
Invective is inappropriate. I think you will find othes who agree with you that workfare is a great idea, but I think you will find more opposition to it by the left than the right.
Walsh is using "responsibility" as a platform, but would never talk about how responsible you can be working 2 low paying jobs, having no health care, or savings, and trying to make ends meet at the same time every tax, bill, and fee is being increased to offset the taxes the billionaires, and corporations are not paying on their windfall profits. If you fail, and have to claim bankruptcy because a kid got sick, and you had to pre pay for their medical care, with the bankruptcy bill the banks can hound you forever. Way to go banks!
People working 2 low paying jobs do not pay much in federal taxes if any, and if they have kids, more than likely they are getting money back after paying zero income tax. They ARE hurt in our regressing sales tax system in this state, and the lack of medical insurance is a huge problem for many, and I have a big problem with the system we have now, but have even less love for the single payer system being bandied about. I am still looking for a good program that can work that is not dependent on workplace benefits as the main source of health insurance.
We all see these additional costs when we do our budgets. Why is it that only I would want to address the effects of cutting capitol gains taxes in half? Repealing the estate tax? Bermuda corporations? Not to mention the crumbs Bush's 3 tax cuts gave to the middle class, when it was the top 1% that got the most benefit.
That is complete liberal claptrap. Read truesoldier's barstool economics post in the public blog. I posted a comment there.
Your tax dollars at work padding Merck, and Phizer's bottom line.
These companies do not make obscene profits compared to other companies, but they take high risks. Also they make some rather useful drugs that don't seem to be coming from other drug companies that seem to have lost the incentive to take the risks to find new drugs. Risk and reward is a very capitalistic concept, and many are very uncomfortable with that.
We get charged what the market will bear. The amount of profit we allow the companies is all that is passed on, not "cost" or any cost savings.
In the short term, a company may be able to reap rewards from certain moves, but Nike makes money because Americans are willing to buy their over-priced products(including those who would be better off spending money on other things, but that is what freedom allows.) However, if people were not so hung up on a logo, they could easily buy quality merchandise at lower prices and force Nike to lower their prices. An efficient market means that if a company is making high profits, enterprising entrepeneurs can come in and undercut the market. Long term it benefits everyone, creating choice and low prices.
Posted by: Eyago on April 14, 2007 05:07 PMThe "most efficient in the long term" statement about the free market would make sense if it did not involve corruption, graft, intimidation, and the need for a trillion dollars a year of military expense to secure. It isn't quite as free as one would like to think.
I do not agree that both sides are equally corrupt when it comes to protecting their rich and powerful friends, though both sides are guilty.
When you say "R's lean toward market forces on health care" and what follows means you think that health care "providers" who's function is to deny benefits when possible, to pad their bottom line is good. These providers are in business to make a profit, and not to make sure people get adequate health care. For profit health care is a disaster, and the graveyards are full of corpses that would be living healthy lives if they received proper medical attention. A V.A. type system fully funded would be a billion times better than what we have now. Screw the 1.7 billion dollar a year salary ceo's taking their cuts.
It is not that the left would be opposed to workfare as much as all benefits being called "entitlements" by the right. I heard David Drier BRAGGING on CNBC how he and his Republicon buddies cut funding on 97 "entitlement" programs. You don't see his family having their medicare cut, or food stamps, or child care. Head Start, or pell grants. There is no word evil enough to describe a person with this greed based ideology.
As far as your comments on the people working 2 low paying jobs, you are just plain wrong. Even though they may pay low income tax, they still get hit with social security, and medicare, and get to pay other taxes on everything they do, use, or touch. We both agree our tax system is regressive. People earning low wages should pay lower rates in taxes other than income tax also. With the use of loopholes, and deductions folks making hundreds of thousands a year many times pay a lower percentage of their true income than low wage workers. This is insane.
We both can admit our current health care system sucks. With all the profit going to the "providers" there is enough money to insure everyone without raising a single penny in increased taxation. Of course PHARMA would never let this happen. Administrators are far more important than doctors....
"Liberal claptrap" really? How are we gonna pay back the 4 TRILLION dollars Bush borrowed? We pay $180,000,000,000 a year in interest on the money Reagan borrowed. I prefer tax and spend liberals to borrow and spend more without oversight conservatives any day of the week. Giving a few tax breaks now, without improving our economy to any great degree is causing huge deficits, and this could be the end of everything. This fact is undeniable. Whatever tax cuts true soldier got is fine with me. Our troops deserve every tax break they can get. Look at what we are asking from them these days. Don't get me started.
Talking about Merck's risks is comical. Much of the research is funded by the government, through colleges, and then the patents are awarded to their "partners". Just another corporate handout. The pharmaceutical companies spend 10 times as much on marketing as they do on research. Your research argument is a load of poo hoo.
When it comes to entrepeneurs undercutting markets, ask yourself how many people were able to compete with Microsoft..... What happened to their companies when they tried. I have nothing personal against microsoft, but they have enough power to cruch competition, and this is the "free market" the flat worlders rejoice in. Ain't really all that free if you think about it.
Nice talking to yall.....
Posted by: Facts on April 14, 2007 10:00 PMNice talking to yall.....
I'm not sure I can say the same thing. You still devolve into ad hominem and assume that if someone does not see things your way it is either because they are evil or stupid. Not the most congenial conditions for having a debate.
Additionally, despite your pseudonym, your arguments are based mostly on emotion rather than fact and though you do provide some fact based information it is rarely comprehensive, showing the full picture, and many of your examples are anecdotal and not based on clear evidence of systemic problems. I could pose the same examples from the other side, but I find it counter-productive.
Unfortunately we have created an enormous vacuum and middle America is suffering needlessly.
Emotional response without any facts to clarify what "suffering" means what constitutes an "enormous vacuum" and how you define "needlessly"
The "most efficient in the long term" statement about the free market would make sense if it did not involve corruption, graft, intimidation, and the need for a trillion dollars a year of military expense to secure.
Corruption, graft, and intimidation occur in other large institutions outside of business, so this is not sufficint. It lacks clear details on how free market is specifically and quantifiably worse than other systems.
The remark about the military is a red herring fallacy.
do not agree that both sides are equally corrupt when it comes to protecting their rich and powerful friends, though both sides are guilty.
Fine, we both disagree with the other, but without clear evidence that is quantifiable, this is a meaningles debate point.
When you say "R's lean toward market forces on health care" and what follows means you think that health care "providers" who's function is to deny benefits when possible, to pad their bottom line is good.
False assumption. I believe that health insurers are negligent if they deny benifits unethically and should be held liable. I just think that competition in the market place creates efficiencies lacking from non-competitive programs, but I also think there is room for abuse that must be dealt with to protect the consumer.
I heard David Drier BRAGGING on CNBC how he and his Republicon buddies cut funding on 97 "entitlement" programs. You don't see his family having their medicare cut, or food stamps, or child care. Head Start, or pell grants. There is no word evil enough to describe a person with this greed based ideology.
Anecdotal argument. Also, you have to consider whether simply having more money results in any justifiable incremental increases in assistance. Over-funded social programs may not be any more helpful than if they were funded at a lower amount. You have to provide the facts on whether the programs are effectively doing the job commensurate with the funding they were getting and then demonstrate how these people purposely cut funding knowing it would leave vulnerable people without needed assistance. And THEN, you could only castigate those who purposed to do this rather than those who did not, even if they are the same ones who may have supported the cut. You can only chastise the seocnd group for not doing the proper dilligence before making their choice to act.
As far as your comments on the people working 2 low paying jobs, you are just plain wrong. Even though they may pay low income tax, they still get hit with social security, and medicare, and get to pay other taxes on everything they do, use, or touch. We both agree our tax system is regressive. People earning low wages should pay lower rates in taxes other than income tax also. With the use of loopholes, and deductions folks making hundreds of thousands a year many times pay a lower percentage of their true income than low wage workers. This is insane.
Yes it is liberal claptrap because you make the same mistake all liberals make by not addressing each issue separately. It appears your goal might be to use the federal income tax as a way to redress what you think is a disparity in the rest of the tax system. Even if the goal were noble, it would never address what you describe is the REAL problem.
First, the federal income tax is seaprate from Medicare, SSI, Sales and many other taxes. Taking in more federal tax from the rich can do nothing to fix the other taxes. All it can do is make you feel better that the rich are paying more in taxes.
Second, the SSI tax, while appearing disparite(sp?), is very progressive. It is progressive on the benefits side rather than the tax side. Persons taxes AND their benefits are both derived from their level of income. Lower income people receive a greater percentage of SSI benefits per dollar earned than higher income people, and all SSI benefits are capped, which is why the tax amount is capped. If you do not understand the SSI system, you can't really argue against its structure.
When you fully understand how SSI works and that it is completely separate from all other taxes, you will discover that it is inappropraite to use other taxes as a "compensation" for SSI. SSI is a tax on all workers as a way to support those very same workers in their retirement. Everybody plays, everybody pays, and the lowest earners get larger benefits verses contributions than the highest earners.
Once you remove that from the equation, you will learn that the real tax problem is the sales tax which might put us on more common ground.
I'd do more, but I ran out of time. Maybe I'll do a follow up on the rest at another time.
Posted by: Eyago on April 15, 2007 12:18 PMto finish up...
Talking about Merck's risks is comical. Much of the research is funded by the government, through colleges, and then the patents are awarded to their "partners". Just another corporate handout. The pharmaceutical companies spend 10 times as much on marketing as they do on research. Your research argument is a load of poo hoo.
Your remark referencing my "research argument" is the load of poo hoo. I never made a research argument. I talked about risk and reward and never addressed the R&D argument. There are tons of risks taking a drug through the many stages of development that require huge investment with no assurance of efficacy at the end. Many promising drugs fail to make it through the various trials, though companies send millions to carry them that far. I still find it quite interesting that the vast majority of medical developments come from the US. Something must be working right.
When it comes to entrepeneurs undercutting markets, ask yourself how many people were able to compete with Microsoft..... What happened to their companies when they tried. I have nothing personal against microsoft, but they have enough power to cruch competition, and this is the "free market" the flat worlders rejoice in. Ain't really all that free if you think about it.
Here you take one example and apply it universally, another logical fallacy. Certainly you might construe that big squishy went around crushing thier opposition, but sometimes they had to do it by making a competing product. When a good product came out, Bill Gates and crew ended up having to respond. Many of their competitive killing work was actually rolled in for free to the operating system and each time, the consumer gained. There is certainly debate as to whether things like IE was better than Netscape, but IE BECAME better than it was because of Netscape. But that is again a side issue. The point is, that competition and free markets are good, but one must be vigilent to prevent unfair business practices.
You have not really done yourself a favor by coming across so anti-business, and if that is your stand, you have a lot of work convincing me that any economic system is improved by restricting free markets.
Profitable businesses don't pay taxes; they collect taxes from consumers of their services and products. Raising taxes may make profitable businesses uncompetitive with other businesses in other areas. For example the stand of living and taxes are 12-17% lower in SC when compared to WA. That is why few souther companies will move their companies to WA and why many WA companies
( manufacturers especially) move out of WA to more competitive states like SC.
There is little, if any value added to product made in WA. There are usually greater distribution costs because of the remote location of WA from major population centers. Sorry to disappoint, but WA is large in area but small in population and Seattle is considered a small town East coast standards. This results in greater distribution costs. Frequently it costs more to ship from Seattle to Florida then from China to Florida.
So a manufacturer in SC pays 12-17% less in direct costs for manufacturing. Also pays less taxes for state and local government. Distribution costs are less. And if the manufacturer wants to expand, SC will react in a friendly way and not charge exorbitant fees and make unreasonable demands.
Asking business to spend $300,000 on beautification in an industry park prior to issuing a building permit for expanding a building on their own property illustrates an unreasonable demands. Company expanded in another state. 300 jobs lost in Washington.
The last Gov didn't have a clue when the largest manufacturer in the state bailed out. Its amazing how bias the thinking in Olympia when they are blind to the move of Boeing. And now you know why Rolls Royce built in SC and not Washington. Suspect Boeing provided some advice. Abd thousands of jobs were welcomed in SC not Washington.
Facts you may argue all you want for 2 weeks leave; health care; food; shelter and other goodies for the poor and unions. But you will need businesses, workers and consumers to support your socialist programs. Absent support, socialist are not going to pick up the tab and the state may not hold people and businesses prisoners to support their spending madness.
The latest series of bills including family leave scam. union payback and a host of other uncompetitive business activities proves the point and further weakens the business climate of Washington State.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 16, 2007 06:59 AM