A Proposal for Adequate and Fair Taxes
Diana and Ted Sanford
We propose to create an organization which might
be called Washingtonians for Adequate and Fair Taxes (WAFT). The
organization’s underlying objective will be to counter the anti-tax,
anti-government culture which has taken hold in our state and lead voters to
think not only of their own narrow self interests but also of what will be best
for the larger community including the poor and disadvantaged.
Believing, however, that it will be best to have
an immediate and tangible objective, it is proposed further that WAFT
sponsor an initiative calling for a progressive income tax to replace all or
part of regressive state taxes and to provide additional revenue to improve
quality of life for all, enhance economic productivity, help the poor and
disadvantaged and, above all, give all of our children a decent start in life.
It is believed that getting an initiative on the ballot, even if it did not
pass the first time around, would generate discussion and debate which would
further the objective.
Part 1: ARGUMENTS FOR AN
INCOME TAX
We are not taxed too heavily.
Washington ranks 20th in state and local taxes as a percent of
personal income. Contrary to popular belief, total taxes, federal, state and
local, as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, are much lower in the United
States than in all other developed countries and that’s even though a large
share of our taxes go to military expenditures. In 1991, total taxes in the
U.S. were 29.8 percent of total personal income compared with, for example,
44.4 percent in France, 37.4 percent in
Germany, and 37.3 percent in the United Kingdom. Given reductions in U.S. taxes
since 1991, the disparities are probably greater today. Top marginal rates on
the wealthy, which were 90 percent after World War II, and 70 percent in 1981
have been reduced to 38.6 percent today. And the administration proposes to
reduce them still more.
Regarding the allegation that governments spend
too much.
Government spending on domestic services other
than defense, as a percent of GDP, is at its lowest level in nearly 40 years.
It is often argued that we can reduce taxes without cutting services by
eliminating waste. I personally have no idea whether, or to what degree, our
governments are wasteful. Some waste is inevitable in every enterprise, private
included. Every instance of corporate restructuring, downsizing and layoffs
during the boom of the ‘90s was tacit
admission of previous inefficiency and waste. Recent and continuing corporate
scandals demonstrate that corruption is at least as likely in private as
government sectors. There is considerable evidence to support the charge that
many corporations are not run for the primary benefit either of shareholders or the general public
but for top management since executive compensation including stock options
takes such a large share of the revenue which should be distributed to stockholders. It is true that
government does not benefit from incentives to make a profit which tend to
promote efficiency but, for that very reason, neither does government have the
same incentives to deceive, cheat and cut corners.
However, in order to reassure the public (and
ourselves) that the government is honest and efficient, we should sponsor such
measures as 1) inspectors general for each major department responsible to the
governor; 1) ombudsmen to take public complaints and suggestions; 3) sunset
laws; 4) whistle blower protections; 5) incentives to department heads to come
in under budget; 6) financial rewards to employees who make suggestions
improving efficiency which are adopted; 7) regular independent audits of all
departments.
Income taxes have not deterred growth in the 41
states which have them.
Nine of the 10 states with highest per capita
incomes have income taxes the only exception being Alaska where there are
special circumstances (high incomes inflated by oil revenues and offset by high
cost-of-living). Of the contiguous states, would you rather Washington kept
company with Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, New
Hampshire, Delaware, Vermont and Illinois, the contiguous states with highest
incomes, or Florida, Nevada, South
Dakota, Texas and Wyoming, the only others without an income tax? New Jersey’s rank
in per capita personal income rose from fifth highest to third after adopting
an income tax; Connecticut’s from seventh to fourth. One may speculate that
additional revenue from the income tax
has resulted in healthier and more productive societies, in states which have
one, and therefore more affluence.
State income taxes can be deducted from the
federal tax; sales taxes can’t
Income taxes are less costly to taxpayers who
itemize than an equivalent amount of money paid in sales taxes because income
taxes are deductible, sales taxes aren’t. Every $100 paid in income tax will
actually cost someone in the 28% bracket only $72; in effect the federal
government pays the rest.
Washington’s taxes are not fair.
Washington, which is one of only 7 states without
an income tax, has the most regressive
taxes of any state. Washington is the highest taxed state for the non-elderly
poor taking 17.6 percent of the poorest 20 percent’s total income for state and
local taxes but only 3.3 percent of the top 1 percent’s income. Neighboring
Oregon takes only 9.4 percent from the poorest. Florida is the next most
regressive state but takes only 14.4 percent from the poorest. Only eight
states take more than 10 percent.
On the other hand, so far as burden of state and
local taxes on wealthy families we rank 45th - sixth lowest in tax burden on
the wealthy. Amongst residents of the nation’s 30 largest cities, Seattle is
fourth-highest in taxes paid by a family of four with incomes below
$25,000, but 26th - fourth lowest - in taxes paid by families with
incomes over $150,000. Comparing taxes which would be paid in each state’s
largest city by a family with an annual income of $50,000, Seattle ranks 41st,
the ninth lowest tax burden.
(It may be that our B&O taxes and property
taxes are also unfair. At this point we should probably focus only on sales
taxes but, at some point, we might want to look at these other taxes also. As I
understand it, our Business and Occupations tax is levied on gross revenue
rather than net revenue (profits, after expenses). If this is so, it would seem
to me that the B&O tax is unfair on the face of it and, further, that it
may contribute to a hostile business climate in our state. According to Richard
E. Swanson in “Insight,” Tacoma News Tribune, May 4, 2003, Washington is
the only state with a B&O tax and “employers shoulder a greater portion of
the state tax burden than businesses in most other states.” Perhaps then we
should replace part or all of B&O revenue with the income tax.)
(Property taxes may also be unfair especially for
older people who purchased property many years ago which has since greatly
appreciated while their income has not kept pace. The property tax measures
only one part of a person’s wealth. Why
do we tax only property and not wealth en toto?)
There is a need for government and we must fund
it adequately.
There are public needs which are important to
quality of life or which will make our state’s economy more productive in the
future which profit-making businesses or private charities either cannot handle
or have no incentive for handling.
Governments’ potential for good is illustrated by
numerous achievements, for example, at the federal level, putting men on the
moon, building the interstate highway system, rebuilding Europe after World War
II, and developing the internet. Government sponsored research and development
gave us the jet engine, radar, antibiotics and computers.
State and local governments are starved for
revenue.
Schools are increasing class sizes, laying off
teachers, cutting physical education, the arts and other programs, and
deferring maintenance. State and county parks and campsites in state forests
are being closed or fees charged for those that remain open, trails are not
maintained, cities have cut back on maintenance of many city parks. Colleges
are increasing class sizes, cutting back on research and raising tuitions
beyond what many can afford. Prosecutors’ offices are under funded and
prisoners are being released early. There is a severe shortage of foster homes.
Our transportation systems are a mess. The infrastructure is crumbling. Day
care services which permit infirm elderly to remain in their homes are cut
back. Cuts to Medicaid will mean 40,000 children without health care. Dental
and vision services for low income persons are reduced or eliminated; so is
legal aid for the poor. Caseloads for social workers and parole officers are
raised to intolerable levels. Counseling and prenatal care for teenage mothers
is eliminated. The list goes on and on. (See Appendix I for specifics.)
State and local governments need more revenue to
improve our lives.
Governments are the “domain of the commons.” They
provide things which improve the quality of life for all of us: education,
highways, mass transit, water supply, airports, air controllers, sewers,
libraries, parks, public swimming pools, sports stadiums, state and national forests, public safety, public health,
support of the arts, Medicare, social security. Governments also provide that
regulation which (neo-conservatives to the contrary notwithstanding) is
essential to proper functioning of our market economy: food and drug laws and
inspection, worker safety, fire codes, building codes, land use, civil rights,
environmental protections and (as recently demonstrated) investors’ markets. In
starving government we will steadily erode the quality of our lives and, even
more, the lives of those who come after us, our children and grandchildren. If
all one knew about two places to live
was that one was high tax, the other low, there would be good reason to choose the former since it would
probably have better schools, libraries, museums, transportation and other
services; in other words, the high tax area would probably be a better place to
live.
Adequately funded state and local governments
contribute to a more productive economy
In the long run, a more productive economy will
result from more generous public expenditures on education, transportation,
infrastructure and on public services which make the state a more desirable
place in which to live and do business. A Technology Alliance study ranking
the states for economic competitiveness gives Washington barely passing grades
and warns that our attractiveness to technology-oriented companies is rapidly
fading.
Adequately funded state and local governments
contribute to the nurture of our children
Of special concern are our children. There are
those who rationalize that the poor are not deserving of support since their
poverty is their own fault. But surely not even the most rabid neo-conservative can say this of young
children. Even they must agree that civilized people nurture and protect their
children - all of them. If we truly believe in equality of opportunity we
should level the playing field to be sure that all children have a decent start
in life.
One in seven Washington state children are in
poverty and many more in near poverty. Washington Kids Count reports that one
in three children have inadequate income to meet basic needs. Thousands of our
children are malnourished, are victims of abuse and neglect, are homeless, have untreated dental
needs, do not have health insurance, do not have adequate day care while their
mothers work, are not made ready for school when they are very young, do
not get a good education when they’re in
school, have no supervision and have nothing constructive to do after school,
and can’t afford college. These conditions
are not willed by God. They result, in large part, from political choices we
have made which we can do something about, if we care enough. (See Appendix III
for more.)
Adequately funded governments help the
disadvantaged and those in need, especially those who suffer from no fault of
their own.
The poor are “America’s disappeared.” Poverty in
the United States has been called “the forgotten Third World.” It’s no wonder,
I suppose, since most of the poor don’t vote or make campaign contributions.
Of particular concern are the
750,000 Washingtonians without health insurance most of whom are
low-income workers not eligible for Medicaid.
A humane society should, in effect, self-insure
its members. The Judeo/Christian ethic surely posits a collective
responsibility for the poor. We should, through government as well as private
charity, collectively help those who are in need from no fault of their own
owing to disasters, catastrophic illness, unemployment, and crime; also the
physically, mentally or emotionally disabled and their care-givers.
Most current (May, 2003) proposals to meet the
state’s deficit weigh most heavily on low income persons. It’s easier to make
them pay because most don’t vote and can’t
effectively complain. Cuts in services mostly affect them as do “vice
taxes” on alcohol, tobacco, increased gambling and higher user fees. So the
poor get clobbered both ways: higher taxes and fewer services.
The Proposal should not be viewed as “conservative” vs. “liberal” or as having
“class war” overtones.
We should be able to solicit support from true
conservatives as well as liberals and from persons of affluence as well as from
those of limited means.
True conservatives appreciate that, in the words
of Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York, those who founded this nation over
just 200 years “realized that we could not achieve greatness as a dog-eat-dog
society of millions of disassociated individuals. They recognized the
interconnectedness and interdependence of all of us - as a nation and beyond.
So they supplemented the market system by having government contribute to the
people’s well-being in order to enhance the productivity of America’s
workers.... We made this country great by coming together and sharing benefits
and burdens for the good of the whole nation.”
There are many public spirited and compassionate
persons amongst the well-to-do. For example,
William Gates, Sr., Warren Buffet and George Soros have criticized upper
bracket tax cuts and Donald Trump proposed a wealth tax. Objecting to the
administration’s tax cuts, Soros told CNBC that it is “basically using the
recession to redistribute income to the wealthy.” In an eloquent article in the
Washington Post, Warren Buffet has also come out against cutting the tax
on dividends pointing out that, if Berkshire Hathaway declared $ 1 billion in
dividends and these weren’t taxed, his federal taxes would be about 3 percent
of income while his receptionist’s, payroll taxes included, would be 30
percent. Columnist Molly Ivins quotes Texas multi-millionaire B. Rapoport
as saying: “Look, you make $50,000 a year and pay
$8000 in income taxes. That won’t send you to the poorhouse, but it will sure
as hell put a crimp in your budget. I make a million dollars a year, I pay
$400,000 in income taxes. That leaves me $600,000 a year to live on. You gonna
feel sorry for me? I’m still rich.”
The extreme right wingers from Southern and
Mountain states who have taken over the Republican party and whose influence is
felt in our state are a different breed from conservatives of yesteryear. The
differences are so profound that the media has found it necessary to coin a new
term, “neo-conservatives,” to distinguish them from traditional conservatives.
Today’s radical “neo-conservatives” are no longer the party of Lincoln (who
feared for the safety of the country because “corporations have been enthroned”
and wealth “aggregated in a few hands”), Theodore Roosevelt (a conservationist
who believed government needed to protect society against capitalism’s
excesses); Eisenhower ( who warned of the “military-industrial complex”); or
Nixon (who signed OSHA and the Environmental Protection and Food and Drug
Acts).
A Wasserman cartoon in the Boston Globe shows two
hyenas labeled “GOP Right Wing” walking before the capital. One says to the
other; “Bipartisan. It means we get to eat Democrats and Republicans.”
It is increasingly apparent that the
neo-conservatives’ real agenda, nationally and in our state, is to make it
financially impossible for the government to fund social security, Medicare and
other programs which they wish to emasculate but which are too popular for them
to attack directly. (See Appendix II for more.)
Too many of our citizens have been blindsided
into accepting views which are against traditional values espoused by
Christianity and most major religions and are also against their own
self-interest.
We live in an era of government bashing
inaugurated by Mr. Reagan who famously pronounced, “government is not the solution;
it’s the problem.” Private interests which believe they would profit from lower
taxes and minimal government have conned the public into believing that less
government is always better, that government is inevitably inefficient and
corrupt; that private enterprise can always do it best. The neo-conservatives
of today are convinced that the government which governs least governs best, no
matter how much that results in injustice and suffering, damage to the
environment we leave our children, declining productivity, or greed allowed to
run rampant.
The question we should ask those who favor
minimal government is, if government is not to enhance quality of life and help
the poor and disadvantaged, then who is? Perhaps they will say we should leave
it to private charities. There will always be a need for private charity. But
arguing that helping the poor and disadvantaged should be left entirely to
charity is just a rationalization for reducing taxes. Charitable contributions
would have to be increased many times over merely to replace current meager
expenditures on public services never mind increasing them. Given
current individual levels of giving it is totally unrealistic to expect this
could happen. On average individuals only give about 2% of their incomes
to charity. Those with incomes over $100,000 average only 2.2%. In Silicon
Valley, for example, almost half of households having a net worth in excess of
$1 million gave less than $2000 per year to charity. And much the greater part
of what is given goes to education, the arts and religion not to social
services.
Depending entirely on charitable giving would
mean little or no rational allocation of money amongst competing needs. Also
many of us who might give cheerfully if everyone else was doing so are somewhat
reluctant to be amongst a minority who sacrifice when the majority don’t,
believing our gifts alone won’t make much difference. Depending entirely on
charitable giving would mean placing the whole burden on those inclined to be
generous as opposed to having everyone do their share. Help for the least
fortunate amongst us should not depend largely or entirely on a few but should
be a responsibility shared by everyone in the community.
Many Americans are instinctively generous. Look
at the overwhelming passage of initiatives to raise teacher pay and the pay of
child care workers and to make health
insurance affordable for low income workers; at Americans taxing themselves in
support of school and park levies; and of typically generous responses to
disasters. But the effect of the neo-conservative brain-washing which has led
the public to adopt extreme anti-government, anti-tax views, has been to curb
their natural instincts for generosity
when they step into the ballot box.
Conclusion: The issue is one of morality. We shouldn’t hesitate to say so.
I am not personally a church-goer and, depending
on one’s views, may not even be a Christian. But, like most of us, I have a moral code firmly rooted in the New
Testament. To me, the issues which are the subject of this Proposal are above
all moral issues and I suggest we shouldn’t hesitate to say so. The
neo-conservatives have gotten a lot of mileage, after all, from proclaiming
their alleged faith even though their rhetoric of compassion and justice is not
reflected in their policies. (Perhaps they’re firmly rooted in the Old
Testament and what you shouldn’t do rather than the New Testament where Jesus
tells us what we should do.) I think Democrats and “liberals” have made a mistake in thinking religion is
something not to be mentioned and that morals are relative.
“Conservatives frame all of their issues in the
context of a moral philosophy. Progressives believe that government should be a
moral force in which the citizens
collectively do for one another things that individuals and businesses
cannot do. Why can’t our leaders proudly convey this?” So wrote Danny
Goldberg in The American Prospect (July/August 2003)
Eighty-seven percent of Americans say religion is
important to them according to a recent poll. Writing in the Washington
Monthly (“Do the Democrats Have A Prayer, “ June, 2003), Amy Sullivan says
Americans are influenced when policy decisions are linked to religious belief
(or to a code of morality, I should think) even if the religion is not the one
they profess.
Referring to the Bush budget, Jim Wallis, head of
Call to Renewal, a religious coalition of compassionate progressives, writes
“budgets are moral documents that reveal our priorities.” The emphasis is mine and I suggest this
should be part of our message.
The Right Reverend John Chane, Bishop of the
Episcopal Diocese of Washington (D.C.)
has declared: “We are embarked on a draconian program of social welfare
highlighting cuts in services to protect the poor, the sick, and the young.
This is not at all what Jesus Christ meant when he said, ‘Suffer the little
children to come unto me.’”
We should ask neo-conservatives: “Where does the
Bible say God favors giving more to those who have and less to those who have
not?” If there is one thing evident in the Scriptures, it is that God gives
priority to the poor. “When I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was hungry
you fed me.” “When you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it to
me.” “For the poor shall never cease out
of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide
unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.” “When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the
maimed, the lame and the blind.” “Give money to the poor and you will have
treasures in heaven.”
By what quirk of fate were some of us born to
relative affluence while others were consigned to poverty? Does God reward us
because we were good boys and girls in some previous life? Is it for some fault
of their own that the poor are born to
their fate? Is their poverty justified? It would be convenient to believe these
things but most of us probably don’t. If we don’t, should we feel some
responsibility to share our wealth with those who are less fortunate?
* * * * *
Sources:
pg. 1, Washington ranks 20th: US Census; Richard
E. Swanson, “Insight,” Tacoma News Tribune, May 4, 2003.
pg. 1, taxes lower in the United States: Michael
Wolff and others, Where We Stand, Bantam
Books, New York, 1992, p. 196.
pg. 1, government spending as a percent of GDP:
David Gergen, US News and World Report,
September 10, 2002
pg. 2, 9 of 10 states with highest per capita
incomes: Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 2002.
pg. 2, Washington has most regressive taxes: Bainbridge
Review, editorial, April 5, 2003 and
“Who Pays,” Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy, January 2003, reported
by Dollars and Sense, May/June 2003.
pg. 2, tax burden on top 1%: CTJ Update,
March 2003
pg. 3, burden on the wealthy - Statistical
Abstract of the U.S. 2002 and World Almanac 2002.
pg. 4, Technology Alliance study: John Gillie, Tacoma
News Tribune, May 13, 2003.
pg. 5,
750,000 without health insurance:
Becky Kavassi and Dr. Paul Crittenden,
Tacoma
News Tribune, October 5, 2001.
pg 6,
Mario Cuomo, Liberal Opinion Week, June 16, 2003.
pg. 6, George Soros: Jodie T. Allen, U.S. News
and World Report, June 9, 2003
pg. 6, Warren
Buffet, Washington Post, May 20, 2003; Liberal Opinion Week,
June 2, 2003.
pg. 6, B. Rapoport: Molly Ivins, Liberal Opinion
Week, June 23, 2003
pg. 6, Wasserman cartoon, Liberal Opinion Week,
June 23, 2003.
pg. 7, average individuals give about 2%: Money,
December 2000; Independent Sector, reported
in Reader’s Digest, November, 2001.
pg. 7, those with incomes over $100,000: Ibid.
pg. 7, in Silicon Valley: “Cheapskates.com,”
Brendan K. Koerner, Washington Monthly, January/February
2001.
pg. 8, eighty-seven percent: 2002 Pew Forum on
Religion and Public Life poll; Amy Sullivan,
“Do the Democrats Have A Prayer,” Washington Monthly, June 2003.
pg. 8, Jim Wallis, Liberal Opinion Week,
June 20, 2003.
pg. 8, The Right Reverend John Chane: Amy
Sullivan, op. cit.
Part II - POSSIBLE PLAN OF
ACTION
Immediate objective.
The original version of this Proposal included a
discussion of possible specific tax reforms to be the subject of an Initiative
and also contemplated a Board of Directors to make these and other
decisions and aid in organizing the effort. However, it seems premature to
consider these matters at this early stage. Therefore the objective, at this
point, is to identify persons of stature who believe in the need for tax reform
and who might be willing to participate in an effort to achieve same
provided enough momentum is generated to suggest that such an effort is
feasible.
Recruitment of volunteers and gathering of
signatures: pyramidal organization.
Number of signatures required:
The number of valid signatures required is equal
to eight percent of the votes for governor in the last general election. There
were 2,470,000 votes for governor in the last election. Adding some additional
signatures to allow for disqualifications, I propose 225,000 signatures as the
goal.
Time frame for filing initiative and petition
(signatures):
The initiative must be filed within ten months of
the general election. Petitions must be filed not less than four months before
the general election. So we have six months after filing the initiative to
obtain the necessary signatures.
Reliance entirely on volunteers not paid
signature gatherers:
Using paid signature gatherers would be expensive
and require major fund-raising which this proposal seeks to avoid. According to
Richard E. Ellis in Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America
(University Press of Kansas, 2000) in recent years the great majority of
successfully qualified initiatives (those which made the ballot) relied
on paid signature gatherers. However, he points out, there were a few which
relied entirely on volunteers including, for example, Tim Eyman’s I 695.
In addition to saving expense, the great advantage of relying entirely on
volunteers, according to Ellis, is that doing so clearly sends a message to the
legislature to an extent not accomplished when paid signature gatherers are
used. “A successful volunteer effort is a virtual guarantee that a significant
segment of the population feels passionately about an issue.”
To Whom Can We Look for Support? We
should be able to look to all public-spirited citizens, however affluent, who
care about the health of their community and the welfare especially of children
and those who are less fortunate. This includes conservatives as well as
so-called progressives or liberals and excludes only those who wish and can
afford to withdraw behind gates to a world they have created for themselves
only.
After this we appeal to self-interest. Who would
benefit? The Board should help with their identification. Here are some
suggestions, for starters:
·
All those connected with public education at any
level, elementary, secondary or universities, whether as administrators,
teachers or students. All levels of education are starved for funds. Quite
possibly teachers and students could be organized as signature gatherers.
·
Labor unions such as the Washington State Labor
Council (AFL-CIO, Rick Bender, president), Washington Federal and State
Employees (Joe Nilsson, president local
443), the new union for state-funded home-care workers.
·
Perhaps small businesses especially if we make
eliminating or changing the B&O tax
an objective.
·
Businesses which would benefit from larger public
expenditures on transportation systems and infrastructure such as contractors
who would be involved with construction of highways or mass transit.
·
Big business which would benefit from improved
transportation and infrastructure, a better educated work force and possibly
changes in the B&O tax.
·
Churches. The Washington Association of
Churches has already come out for an
income tax. Churches having a high proportion of lower income persons and
persons of color might be especially likely to help. Could we enlist support
from any high profile pastors? I suspect that clergy serving primarily more
affluent parishes might be reluctant to get involved with political issues but
perhaps they could give us some access to their congregations. To me, the
issues are above all moral issues which should resonate with religious groups.
·
Non-profit groups serving disadvantaged persons
(we could get a list from United Way) and individuals working with public
agencies serving such persons.
·
Various citizen action groups: Washington Citizen
Action, Economic Opportunity Institute; Statewide Poverty Action Network;
Children’s Alliance; American Association of University Women (the local
chapter is said to be pro income tax); League of Women’s Voters (said to share
same lobbyist as AAUW).
·
Perhaps local chapters of national citizen action
groups such as Children’s Defense Fund; Public Citizen; Nation magazine
discussion groups.
·
Perhaps environmental groups since some of added
revenues might well be used to protect and enhance the environment.
Hours of work expected of each volunteer:
It is proposed that each volunteer be asked to
gather about 200 signatures. Given the goal of 225,000 signatures, 1074
solicitors will then be required. (This may seem like a big order. But this is
where the “pyramidal organization” comes in. See below.) Jim Schultz, in The
Initiative Cookbook (San Francisco: Democracy Center, 1998 p. 3) estimates
it takes 66 three hour shifts (two persons each) a week for five months to get
75,000 signatures. That works out to about nine signatures per hour per
volunteer (which is consistent with my own limited experience soliciting
signatures). At that rate, to get our 225,000 signatures we would need 16,136
volunteer hours or 17 hours per volunteer. This could be accomplished if, on
average, each volunteer worked five 3-4
hour days which could mean one 3-4 hour day a week for five weeks. That doesn’t
seem excessive.
Pyramidal organization: Teams
It is proposed to organize volunteers into 23
teams of 40 volunteers each plus a number of smaller teams for geographical
areas where full teams are not required. At approximately 200 signatures per volunteer,
each team is responsible for 8000 signatures. The 23 teams together are
responsible for 184,000 signatures and the smaller teams for the remaining
signatures required to get to 225,000. Each team is headed by (for want of a
better term) a Director recruited by the Executive Secretary, Board or others.
Recruiting Directors who will do the job is key to the campaign’s success and a
most important responsibility of Executive Secretary and Board. The Director’s
most important responsibility is to recruit four Assistant Directors. The
Assistant Directors each recruit three captains. Each captain recruits two
workers. Total, forty volunteers plus the Director. But noone has had to
recruit more than two, three or four others the whole idea being to spread the
work and minimize the burden.
The Directors need not personally solicit
signatures. Their first responsibility is to recruit the four assistants. After
that they educate all team members on the issues (perhaps calling on the
Executive Secretary, Board members or others to assist), suggest to team
members how they might go about soliciting signatures and, most important,
follow up with the four Assistant Directors to be sure those for whom they are
responsible are doing the job. The Assistant Directors, in turn, will look to
their captains.
This manner of organizing is essentially the way
I organized Annual Givings as a Headmaster. The idea for it first came to me in
my earliest years as Headmaster (1960) , when my young school desperately
needed money, and before the days when Annual Givings were routine. I was
inspired by the “Every Member Canvass” at the church I then attended. My idea
was to involve a very large proportion of parents representing 1/4 to 1/3 of
the school’s families in personally soliciting all other parents. The parents
were organized into teams. I recruited a
few team leaders who then recruited other parents to help them, who then
recruited other parents. Over the next 27 years, at my three schools, numerous
refinements were made but this was the essence of what everyone now calls
“Annual Giving” as it functioned at all my schools. The programs were always
successful to the extent that, after becoming a consultant, I gave well
attended two-day workshops for Headmasters and Directors of Development on how
to have successful annual givings. I tell you this, not to toot my own horn,
but to suggest that this style of organizing, on a much larger scale, might well
be successful in achieving the goal of 225,000 signatures. Organization is
the key!
One thing I learned during these years was that
some volunteers will do the job and others won’t. I can almost promise that, if
we take this on, of every four volunteers, two will do the job with no problem
and may exceed goals; one will do it with a lot of prodding; and the fourth
won’t produce no matter how much prodding. The Director’s job is to prod those
who need it and to tactfully replace those who just won’t perform perhaps by
“promoting” a worker, recruiting replacement volunteers as needed or
compensating with other volunteers who exceed their quotas. (Some of the
Directors may themselves have to be replaced, perhaps with one of their
Assistants.) Successful campaigns
require that these realities be anticipated and allowed for.
Dividing the state’s metropolitan areas into four
groups.
I have hypothetically divided the state’s
metropolitan areas into four groups according to my estimate of their potential
for gathering signatures and have assigned a quota to each group: signatures
from 6 percent of the population from
group I, 5 percent from group II, 4 percent from group III and 2 percent from
group IV. Group I is Tacoma, since that is home base. For establishing other
groups I assumed that western Washington is less anti-tax than eastern, that
university towns should be receptive, and that relatively low-income areas have
particular self interest in the campaign succeeding. See Chart, Appendix IV.
Signature quotas for leading population areas,
grouped by presumed ease of getting signatures.
County Lead County Signatures # of
City Population Required Teams
(40 workers +director, @ approximately 200
signatures per worker.)
Group I: signatures from 6% of
population
Pierce Tacoma 681,000 40,860 5
Group II: signatures from 5% of
population
King Seattle
1,659,300 82,965 10
Skagit Everett 561,000 28,050 4
Thurston Olympia 201,110 10,056 1 1/4
Whatcom Bellingham 158,800 7,940 1
Whitman Pullman 41,000 2,050
1/4
Group III: signatures from 4% of
population
Clark Vancouver 326,800 13,072 1 1/2
Kitsap Bremerton 232,900 9,316 1
Cowlitz Longview 92,900 3,716 1/2
Gray’s Harbor Aberdeen
68,400 2,736
1/3
Clallum Port Angeles 67,500 2,700 1/3
Group IV: signatures from 2% of
population
Spokane Spokane 412,500 8,250 1
Yakima Yakima 209,500 4,190 1/2
Chelan Wenatchee 62,900 1,258
1/4
WW, F’lin, Benton Tri-Cities 234,410 4,688 1/2
Costs:
This proposal assumes that no one will be asked
to contribute significant amounts of money and that we will not have to mount
major fund raising efforts. No one should have to give money to serve on the
Board. There will, however, obviously be some costs, for example, for printing
the petitions and flyers for use by solicitors and perhaps other promotional
materials. I envisage little if anything for paid advertising. There will also
be some costs associated with recruiting, organizing and following up on volunteers.
Ellis writes that “There are tremendous organizational demands for a volunteer
drive.” According to him, costs for Eyman’s successful all-volunteer I-695
effort came to $78,000. Perhaps I’m naive but I can’t imagine why anything like
that should be necessary since organizing the volunteers would primarily
require, as I see it, just transportation costs (for recruiters and
coordinators) and telephoning.
Perhaps the team structure can also be employed
to raise money. Let’s assume I am very naive and that we do need as much as Eyman,
which is $78,000. That comes to $73 per volunteer. Perhaps we could ask each
team to accept a quota based on $73 per volunteer or ask each volunteer to be responsible for
$73, either from his own contribution or solicited from others. The point is,
$78,000 sounds like a lot of money whereas everyone involved could
probably handle $73. Perhaps we should
make this a membership organization with, say, $50 per volunteer in dues. If we
do take in any considerable amount of money we need to be very careful seeing
that contributions are properly deposited and accounted for.
Publicity and Advertising.
As said, the proposal does not assume any paid advertising.
If we gain momentum we should get free advertising. Otherwise we rely on word
of mouth, flyers distributed by volunteers, perhaps posters, letters to the
Editor and perhaps a Speakers’ Bureau.
If we succeed in getting the initiative on the
ballot, then we can take up the matter of paid advertising again and perhaps it
will then be possible to raise money for that from organizations whose members
would stand to benefit and also from sympathetic individuals.
Part III: Cuts in Services
During 2000-2002 I intermittently made notes of
cuts in state or local services mentioned in the Tacoma News Tribune:
For every dollar spent on transportation in Washington in 1980 we spend 49c
today. (Doug McDonald, Washington State Transportation Secretary, Nov. 4, ‘01)
Our state parks have a $40 million dollar maintenance backlog. (editorial, Mr.
19, ‘01) Washington ranks 47th in funding per park visitor. (June 10, ‘01) The
Department of Resources must protect an area almost the size of Connecticut
with only six officers. (June 10, ‘01) An additional 1000 homes are needed for
the 11,000 Washington children in foster care. (Nov. 11, ‘01) Washington’s
social workers have case loads almost double national standards. (May 14, ‘01)
Tacoma has 31 fewer police than a year ago. (Nov. 12, ‘01) Parole officer
caseloads are about 50% higher than in neighboring states. (March 19, ‘00)
Loads of state social caseworkers are 29:1 compared with national standards
calling for 15:1. (May, ‘01) Christine Gregoire says managers of state agencies
are facing a deepening crisis in recruiting and maintaining a skilled workforce
owing to lagging compensation and benefits. (Mr. 27, ‘01) The average tenure of
nurses at Western State is less than six months; the vacancy rate for
corrections officers in our prisons is almost 20 percent; turnover amongst our
social workers has averaged over 28 percent the last three years. (Ibid.)
The Humane Society is 33 percent understaffed according to its Director. (Jan.
5, ‘02) Mental illness is the reason for one in eight hospitalizations of
children but there are always more children in need of high end care than there
is care available at Western State Hospital. (Mary Lafond, CEO, Western State,
Nov. 1, ‘01) Sixteen percent of babies born in 2000 [in Pierce County?] were to
mothers who received no or inadequate prenatal care. Other reductions in
programs and services include services
to the mentally ill and substance abusers needing treatment and care for the
developmentally disabled and mentally retarded. (Debbie Cafazzo, Dec., ‘01)
In 2001, the governor’s budget proposal proposed
eliminating chore services that allow people to stay in their homes and avoid
being sent to nursing homes; cutting adult day care services which serve much
the same purpose and are critical for parents caring for adult children with
disabilities owing to lack of other community services for them; reducing state
reimbursements to nursing homes; eliminating counseling by the Department of
Health for teenage parents; eliminating vocational counseling in state vocational institutions;
eliminating dental care for adults who can’t afford it. (Debbie Regala, state
senator, Feb. 8, 2001) At this writing (June 17, 2003) I’m not sure how many of
these cuts were actually made in the budget finally adopted in 2003.
I recently (spring, 2003) began again making
notes of cuts in government services reported by the Tacoma News Tribune
(all dates are 2003):. The Department of
Natural Resources has closed or
cut back nearly 1/3 of 150 recreation sites and trails are receiving limited
maintenance. Bonnie Bunning of the DNR says “We have a crisis in recreation
support in this state.” (April 25) Tacoma public schools will fill a $7.9
million budget gap by eliminating programs to nab truants, laying off 3 special
education instructors and twenty other
positions and eliminating the Learning Assistance Program which gives
adults reading instruction. (April 26) Across the state (and nation), many
districts are now charging pupils for full-time kindergarten, bus service and
participation in sports and extra-curricular activities. (various dates)
Washington has fallen to 43rd in per pupil funding according to Education
Week. (June 5) Tacoma recently cut a program in which three professional
advocates assisted thousands of victims of domestic violence. (May 18) The
state is “likely to cut” free adult education English as a Second Language
courses at community colleges - “One of the last safety nets for low income
people trying to find a way to support themselves.” (May 16) Tacoma is
eliminating maintenance of 22 parks and five facilities. (June 17) The
Washington Senate approved eliminating $46.5 million in funding for prenatal
medical care for illegal immigrant mothers and cuts in Medicaid which would
leave 40,000 children without health coverage by lowering eligibility to 175
percent of the federal poverty level. (April 6. At this writing - June 17 -I
don’t know whether the final legislative budget included these cuts.) The
budget recently signed by Governor Locke cuts public education funding by $600
million, the largest cut in history (according to a letter to the Editor, June
17, 2003). The gaps between the amounts needed to maintain current state-funded
programs in the schools and actual state funding are $4,222,959 in Tacoma and
$1,178,486 in the Peninsula. Tacoma expects to cuts will cost 100 teachers and
about 50 classified positions. (June 22). The 2003-04 state budget allows state
colleges and universities to raise tuitions for resident undergraduates by as
much as 7% in each of the next two years. It eliminates 1,200 state jobs. Most
state employees and public school workers will see no cost-of-living raises and
must pay a larger share of their medical coverage. The number of poor people
who will get state-subsidized health-care coverage will drop from 130,000 to
100,000. (June 27).
According to State Senator Debbie Regala,
Washington’s general fund net revenues have been reduced by $6.9 billion since 1994 owing to:
Referendum 47 which limited property taxes; Referendum 49 which diverted license
tab fees from the general fund;
legislative approval of $30 license tabs
implementing the intent of I-695; Initiatives 728 and 732 mandating use of
state funds for public schools; $1 billion in corporate tax exemptions to
promote economic development. [And now we have $2 billion in exemptions for
Boeing?] (April 1, 2003.)
Part IV: More on children and
poverty
According to Marian Wright Edelman of the
Children’s Defense Fund, nationwide 11 million children are in poverty, 9 million
are without health insurance, one million are homeless. Twelve million children
“don’t have enough food for a healthy
life.” The United States has a much higher rate of child poverty than any other
nation; over 14% in the US compared with 2% for Japan, 4% for both France and
Germany and 8% for Britain.
One in seven Washington state children are in
poverty and many more in near poverty. There are an estimated 2000 homeless
children in Seattle. Fourteen percent of Washington children have untreated
dental problems. 750,000 Washingtonians don’t have health insurance, most of
them low income workers not eligible for Medicaid. Studies have shown that
their children and also children on Medicaid are much less likely than children
of the insured to receive medical care when they need it or quality care when
they do get it.
The exploitation of children in agriculture:
Children as young as twelve legally can and
do work as many as fourteen hours a day on our farms for as little as $2 an hour. They
are exposed to pesticides, to which children are especially vulnerable, and
nationally an estimated 100,000 child farm workers suffer work related injuries
annually.
Nationwide, fewer than 20% of day care facilities
are of adequate quality and most of those which are are too expensive for most
parents. The median hourly wage of child care workers is $6.17 and there is 40%
annual turnover.
(Poverty worldwide: 32% of the world’s 2.1
billion children will have suffered from malnutrition by age 5; 18% will never
go to school; 20% will never go beyond the fifth grade. Every year nearly 11
million children worldwide die before their fifth birthday, most from
preventable causes such as diarrhea, pneumonia, neonatal problems and malaria.
Malnutrition is a major factor in more than half of these deaths. Flu shots and
other low cost measures which could save 6 million lives a year would cost
about $7.5 billion annually.)
sources for Part IV:
Marian Wright Edelman: letter, October 2002. 12
million:
Department of Agriculture study; David Beckman,
President, Bread for the World; Ed Hunt, “Viewpoint,” Tacoma News Tribune,
November 2000.
US has a higher rate of child poverty: Hewlett
and West, The War Against Parents, Houghton
and Mifflin, New York 1998, p. 122.
one in seven: Rob Carson, Tacoma News Tribune,
October 19, 1999
2000 homeless: editorial, Tacoma News Tribune,
November 29, 1997
14% have
dental problems: Karen Sorenson, Director, the Lindquist Clinic for Children; Sandi Doughtonk, Tacoma News Tribune,
October 16, 2000.
750,000 etc.: Becky Kavassi and Dr. Robert
Crittenden, Tacoma News Tribune, October 5, 2001.
exploitation of children in agriculture: Riskin
and Farrell, Liberal Opinion Week, October 23, 2000.
fewer than 20% of adequate quality: Thomas Oliphant,
Liberal Opinion Week, November 10,
1997.
median hourly wage and turnover of child care
workers: Ellen Goodman, Tacoma News Tribune,
January 15, 1998.
poverty worldwide: Carol Bellamy, Executive
Director, UNICEF, Liberal Opinion Week,
May
20, 2002.
6 million children: UNICEF, Tacoma News
Tribune, June 27, 2003.