Thanks to decisions made by officials of the Washington Education Association, the state’s teacher union has been sued twice by the state Attorney General, convicted of multiple violations of state campaign finance laws, and penalized more than $1 million for years of chronic law-breaking.
Their response: Comply with the law? Apologize to members?
No. They’re spending tens of thousands of dollars (taken from teachers) to attack the organization that exposed their illegal activity. The attacks do not center on disagreements between the WEA and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation surrounding the union’s legal battles. Rather, union officials are attempting to divert attention away from their own misdeeds by painting EFF and its president as extremist.
To try to accomplish this, WEA officials recently began an expensive, statewide media-attack campaign claiming the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s ideas are "dumb" and "dangerous." We’d like you to be the judge of that claim.
WEA claim #1: NO building safety codes for public schools.
WEA’s source for this claim is our Policy Highlighter Child-centered education funding wherein we listed ways to put more dollars into classrooms. A lot of money is diverted from classrooms to comply with unnecessary and expensive regulations that have more to do with creating jobs for special interests than creating safety for children.
WEA claim #2: Goodbye to mandatory health benefits.
In making this exaggerated claim, WEA cites our Policy Highlighter Diagnosing Washington's health care system. Quite simply, we believe state health care policy should focus on allowing consumers more choices and higher quality health care at a lower cost. This requires competition in the health care market, and we are one of the least competitive states in the nation. Fixing this problem requires that legislators and employers stop trying to play doctor by deciding which health care services their employees can have and concentrate more on giving employees funds to make their own health care purchasing decisions.
WEA claim #3: Slam tax burdens on homeowners – to spare developers.
Huh? The WEA manufactured this argument out of thin air. Union officials conjure this claim from our Policy Highlighter Repealing the negative effect of impact fees. Just as with any tax on businesses, impact fees ultimately are passed on to consumers in the form of higher home costs, rents, and more expensive services and products. These taxes are levied on top of permitting and zoning fees, and they hinder the ability of our state’s businesses and developers to provide homes and jobs that bring about the economic growth needed in our state.
WEA claim #4: Private subsidies – You bet!
WEA officials seem to think people who support non-profit organizations, such as EFF, should not receive tax deductions for their contributions. This means United Way, the Red Cross, the Sierra Club, the Boy Scouts, etc, unless, of course, they want the IRS to create a special category for non-profit institutions whose ideas the WEA considers "dangerous."
WEA claim #5: Slash unemployment benefits.
WEA makes this claim based on our Policy Highlighter Unemployment Insurance - A hand up or a hand out? Currently, Washington’s Unemployment Insurance program is one of the most expensive in the nation. We recommend reforming it to eliminate five major problems that are contributing to business insecurity and loss of jobs in our state.
WEA claim #6: Smash or eliminate nearly every tax that supports public schools.
We’ve already been accused of slamming and slashing, why not smashing too? WEA has no back-up for this claim, but cites a quote by Lynn Harsh, EFF’s executive director. When asked about changing state law to allow a simple-majority vote instead of a super-majority vote to pass school levies, Harsh told the Spokesman-Review newspaper: "We’re not happy with any public policy decision that would make homeowners very vulnerable to those who can manipulate an election." Smash? Slam? Slash?
We encourage you to read our publications and decide for yourself if our ideas are "dumb" and "dangerous." Our mission is quite simple: To protect and advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited and accountable government. To that end, we conduct research and make policy recommendations in the areas of budget and taxes, health care, welfare, education, and citizenship and governance.
We could suggest a better use for the tens of thousands of dollars WEA officials are pouring into the attack campaign against EFF. How about if WEA officials start complying with the law and use their money to apologize to teachers for years of chronic law-breaking? How about if they repay teachers money they have been found guilty of misspending?
If you have ideas or suggestions for the WEA and WEA President Charles Hasse, click here.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"