A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

n the past, the legislature has used emergency clauses to avoid public

votes on controversial bills, and this year is no exception. In February lawmakers attached emergency clauses to bills that seemed decidedly non-urgent, including:

An emergency clause was also added to a bill that would attempt to circumvent the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on paycheck protection (Davenport v. WEA).

An emergency clause serves two purposes: 1) bills adopted take effect immediately, and 2) the people are denied their right of referendum due to the purported emergency addressed by the bill. Because Article 2, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution grants the people the power of referendum, denial of this constitutional right must be severely limited.

In fact, the legislature is provided an exemption from a people’s referendum only if the bill adopted is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” The use of this exemption must be limited in order to meet the requirements of Article 1, Section 1, which states: “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

House Bill 2062, the NASCAR track funding measure, is a perfect example of how the emergency clause is used to deny this constitutional right. Attempts to spend public funds on sports facilities like Qwest Field, the Kingdome, Key Arena, Safeco Field, and a new home for the Sonics have been hotly debated.

NON-PROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WA

PERMIT #462

I

MISSION MAPPING 3 SCHOOL CHOICE NOW A REALITY IN UTAH 10

LIVING LIBERTYMARCH 2007 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

EFF TESTIFIES FOR PEOPLES’ RIGHT OF INITIATIVE 6

Just last year the International Speedway Corporation tried to obtain $179 million in taxpayer dollars to fund a NASCAR track, but couldn’t gain a sponsor in the legislature. HB 2062 represents a second attempt. Calling the bill “necessary for the immediate preservation of peace…or public institutions” is simply absurd and is an attempt to protect a bill that would otherwise likely face a referendum.

Several legislators are concerned about this abuse of the emergency clause and have introduced bills to address it. One such bill (House Joint Resolution 4218) would fix the problem by amending the state constitution to require a supermajority vote of legislators to attach an emergency clause (with an exception for appropriation bills). In the case of a true emergency, it would not be difficult to muster a supermajority. In all other cases, the right of referendum should be preserved.

Legislators try to deny the people’s right of referendum

EMERGENCY CLAUSE REFORM STILL NEEDED by Jonathan Bechtle

“An emergency clause was also added to a bill that would attempt to circumvent the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on paycheck protection (Davenport v. WEA).”

LEFT: Emergency Clause attached to the end of Senate Bill 6040

which would, if passed, allow public funds to be used in the construction of a NASCAR race track in Washington state.

• Funding for a NASCAR racetrack in Kitsap County

• A study on minority and women-owned businesses

• A requirement that initiative signature-gatherers sign the back of the petitions they circulate

• Funding for a new arena for the Seattle Supersonics and Storm basketball teams

2 LIVING LIBERTY

34567891011

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

Fax (360) 352-1874 info@effwa.org • www.effwa.org

VOLUME 17, Issue 3

EFF’s mission

is to advance

individual liberty,

free enterprise and

limited, accountable

government.

This Issue3 LETTER FROM LYNN MISSION MAPPING

4 TAX “HOLIDAY” OR PERMANENT TAX RELIEF LEGISLATURE CONSIDERING EPC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

5 A DREAM FOR TAXPAYER EQUALITY SHOULD STATE TREASURER BE A NON-PARTISAN OFFICE?

6 EFF TESTIFIES FOR PEOPLE’S RIGHT OF INITIATIVE SUBSCRIBE TO EFF’S AUDIO UPDATE 7 2007 ELECTION LEGISLATION REVIEW 8 CHEAPER STUDENT LOANS MEAN HIGHER TUITION DO MARKETS WORK?

9 WALK A MILE IN THE UNION’S SHOES GIVE WORKERS A CHOICE

10 CONCERN OF OLYMPIA PARENTS IS THE CONCERN OF WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSAL SCHOOL CHOICE NOW A REALITY IN UTAH

11 WHY AM I EXCITED ABOUT THIS NEW IRS TAX LAW?

Publisher:Booker Stallworth

Editors:Amber GunnVictor Joecks

Layout:Joel Sorrell

“Advice is judged

by results, not by

intentions.” – Cicero, Roman author, orator, and

politician (106 BC - 43 BC)

Pg. 9Walk a le te uo's soes

Guidelines for letter to the editor

Send us your thoughts.Letters TO THE EDITOR

Here’s how:Letters, not exceeding 250 words, must include your full name, address and telephone numbers for verification. This information will not be published. Letters become the property of Living Liberty and may be edited for clarity, brevity or grammar prior to publication. Send letters to:

Living Libertyc/O Evergreen Freedom FoundationAttention: Booker Stallworth

Address: PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507Fax: 360.352.1874

E-mail:bstallworth@effwa.org

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LYNNby Lynn Harsh

CMission Mapping

hange can be frightening. Some degree of tension is usually required for people to make significant

alterations in their lives. For some of us, a health scare or two prompts lifestyle changes we would not make otherwise. Losing a loved one causes others to refocus their goals. Those who have suffered business failure deeply appreciate the need for sharp changes in busi-ness practices.

We’re more likely to make changes when we personally experience what’s at stake.

Significant shifts in public policy require similar circumstances. Usually, the population is passive for a time, and politicians can pretty much do as they please. But when the negative effects of policy are seen or felt by most people…well, agitated people demand change.

The change we get—or are willing to accept under these circumstances—is not always good. The Nazis gained power in Germany because inflation had wiped out the middle-class. They promised relief to people who had watched decades of their earnings quickly erode.

On the other hand, when it was clear that the 1960s Great Society welfare program resulted in multi-generational dependency, the reform we demanded resulted in many poor people getting a new lease on life.

Policy changes are necessary to accomplish EFF’s mission of advancing limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise. But how can we succeed in an environment where the majority of people no longer understand the genesis of economic prosperity or poverty; when they think government exists to meet our needs and wants instead of protecting the opportunity for us to meet our own needs?

EFF staff, Board and trusted advisors have invested time thinking about this. To answer these questions, we drafted a mission map—a route to get from here to there. We identified obstacles and what will be necessary to overcome them. We reviewed trends in the economy, politics, demographics and culture and analyzed the likely impacts of shifts over the next ten years. We developed strategies and contingencies. It is an ongoing process that includes careful hiring and training of staff.

It would be unwise for me to publish our plan on these pages, but we have begun regularly talking about it with our members. After all, you ought to know something about the plan we are asking you to help us execute.

For example, we believe that Americans suffer from significant cultural, intellectual and civic illiteracy. Mainstream media and the current education system will not provide remedies.

We cannot advance our mission unless we overcome these obstacles, so what is our plan?

In a nutshell, we cannot depend on either structure. In innovative and excellent ways, we must add to and create alternate systems in education and media. We intend to become the “must go-to” source for news, information and tools.

Many people today are comfortable accessing information online. These people want customized news, making it possible for them to access news by topic and to watch or listen to news and updates when it is convenient for them.

In addition to our usual publications, such as this one, we can use a daily blog, audio podcast, webcasts, perhaps an EFF radio show, booth displays, and aggressive use of social networking websites like MySpace and Facebook.

Through our Citizen Action Network (which you will hear about in detail next month), we will seek out leaders in every generation and work with them to expand influence. Our civics and economics curriculum, and

those of our like-minded colleagues, will be used in teaching programs so more people will understand the true genesis of this great country.

We also believe, for most Americans, freedom is an abstract concept, and they will not defend and advance that which they do not understand.

Our strategy is to create “freedom experiences” for our target audiences. If you have ever been to the Holocaust Museum or if you have emigrated from a government-controlled country, you feel the experience of freedom when you have it and when you don’t. We live in a country full of experiential learners—a country where, for nearly three-fourths of the population, the heart informs the brain and heavily influences decision-making.

This may annoy those of us who are moved by fact and logic, but it is reality, nonetheless. Our obligation is to make sure that the “feelings” we create spring from truth and lead to decisions based on truth.

Now, here are three assumptions I will talk about all at once. • Our population is aging, creating a host of pol-

icy concerns in health care, labor, entitlements, finance, leisure, etc .

• Our taxpaying population is shrinking. (Baby Boomers far outnumber the younger generation expected to pay for ongoing programs and entitle-ments.)

• The American labor force is shrinking.

All of these assumptions create tension, which in turn creates enormous opportunity to make changes in labor policy, workplace regulations, land use regulations, the size and location of the marketplace, the power of

consumers, and delivery systems. It hastens innovation and scientific breakthroughs.

We will frame the issues and determine the points of agitation/information necessary for our target audiences to accept or demand change from the status quo. We will create or promote solutions.

Think about it. Tax policies will have to be changed as children of the Baby Boomers become unwilling to let government have half or more of their paychecks. We and our policy partners will advance our ideas and their practical application.

Another assumption we make is this: We are certainly not alone in this battle of ideas. Some of the finest people I have ever met have turned their professional and personal acumen toward advancing liberty, most at a significant financial disadvantage to themselves. Some are quietly and persistently working behind the scenes; others are flamboyant and funny.

The trends I listed are not exhaustive. I would be surprised, for example, if we do not suffer another large terrorist attack on our country. We have thought this through, too. But this will give you a flavor of how we are thinking and preparing. Opportunity exists in every

case for us to advance our goals.As I wrote at the beginning, change is difficult for

most people, but it occurs most readily when the status quo of a situation adversely affects a person and those they love. We prefer to head off difficulty at the pass. Where that is not possible, it is in the arena of contrast and conflict that most changes will take place.

We are using this time to scope out the territory and the opposition in order to take back the high ground and win some meaningful ideological battles.

It is our privilege in America to do this through reasoning and persuasion, and it is our privilege to serve you in this way.

“Americans suffer from significant cultural, intellectual and civic illiteracy. Mainstream media and the current education system will not provide remedies.”

4 LIVING LIBERTY

Uby Jonathan Williams and Jason Mercier

Tax “Holiday” or Permanent Tax Relief?

sually when lawmakers sponsor tax relief propos-als, we’d be first in line to congratulate them. It’s

not often, after all, that government officials remember it’s not their money they’re spending and that families should be given every opportunity to keep more of their hard-earned dollars.

That said, Washingtonians would be wise to pay close attention to this year’s legislative support for a limited sales tax “holiday” each year around the beginning of the school year.

computers and other school-related items purchased during the second weekend of every August.

Supporters of sales tax holidays claim the holidays deliver real savings to consumers and boost sales for retailers. The evidence from previous sales tax holidays, however suggests otherwise, at least for retailers.

According to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, while the Empire State’s first sales tax holiday increased sales during the period of the holiday, sales for the year were virtually unchanged. In

that force businesses to develop new administrative and compliance strategies every time a tax holiday is enacted.

Sales tax holidays also essentially allow government to artificially influence what products are purchased and when. By doing so, the government places itself in the business of deciding economic winners and losers—a function that should always be the sole responsibility of the free market.

Sales tax holidays give the dangerous impression that government can manipulate the prices of goods in the free market. When prices fall during a temporary suspension of sales taxes, consumers can mistakenly believe the government directly controls prices.

Considering the economic problems with limited sales tax holidays, why would anyone still support such an idea? It’s simple: Our elected officials love to be seen as tax cutters—even if the tax relief is paltry.

When lawmakers have so many good universal tax-cutting alternatives to choose from, it is truly unfortunate that they focus solely on limited relief. It’s time for lawmakers to reject the gimmick of sales tax holidays and support long-lasting tax relief for all. If tax relief for consumers looks good for a few days, why not give it to them all year long?

Jonathan Williams is an economist at the Tax

Foundation in Washington, D.C. Jason Mercier is

Director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s

Economic Policy Center.

Eby Amber Gunn

Legislature considering EPC policy recommendations

ver wonder what happens to the policy recommen-dations EFF makes each year? Often they show up

in bills introduced and debated in the legislature. This session is no exception. Below is a sampling of some of the bills of note currently moving through the legisla-ture that are worth keeping an eye on.

Rainy-day reserve constitutional amendment (SB 5000, SJR 8200)Different versions of this proposal are currently being considered. A constitutionally-required rainy day fund will allow the state to save money when the economy is healthy, and keep it there until it is truly needed. The idea behind this account is to help even out spending and taxes through the highs and lows of our state’s economic cycles.

In terms of a rainy-day reserve fund, it is important to consider how well protected the funds really are. The proposals on the table this year offer varying protective thresholds to tap the funds. If lawmakers expect the reserve account to have a balance greater than zero, a higher threshold is ideal.

Requiring appropriation bills be made available prior to a vote (HJR 4216, HB 1834)This bill would amend the Constitution to require that appropriations bills be made available to members of the legislature and the public at least five days before a vote is taken. Currently, no mandatory waiting pe-riod exists between the time a bill is introduced and a hearing held or a vote is taken. This legislation would help improve public and legislative participation in the budget process. It would also likely increase the qual-ity of proposed legislation by allowing opportunity for

its detailed review by interested par-ties.Requiring a sixty percent vote for emergency clauses (HJR 4218)Emergency clauses are (apparently) cheaper by the dozen in Olympia. The 2005 Legislative Session saw no fewer than 98 declarations of emer-gency. Under current court interpretation, there is vir-tually no limit to what kinds of bills can have an emer-gency clauses attached. Any bill qualifies if the legis-lature says it is “necessary for the immediate preserva-tion of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” Right now that means proposals like the Sonics stadi-um and NASCAR track come with emergency claus-es. This means that the people’s constitutional right of referendum is circumvented. This bill would raise the threshold to declare an emergency in the first place by requiring a sixty percent vote of the legislature, making it more likely that only true emergencies will get protection.

Requiring recovery audits for government overpayments (HB 1952)Every year federal and state governments lose billions of dollars because of overpayments to contractors, suppliers, and individuals. In many cases, overpayments are not intentional, but the result of human error. Recovery audits find, confirm, and collect refunds from over-payments. This bill would authorize audits to recover funds due to government overpay-ments.

“Tax holidays create unstable tax codes

that force businesses to develop new

administrative and compliance strategies

every time a tax holiday is enacted.”

According to Rep. Moeller, sponsor of the sales tax holiday, his “proposal is a modest but genuine and reliable tax break for average middle-class people. These are the thousands of Washington families who do the best they can to buy school-supplies and still make ends meet before the start of every school year.”

Among those items deemed “worthy” of a sales tax holiday: clothing, shoes, school supplies, textbooks,

other words, shoppers didn’t buy more; they just shifted the timing of their purchases.

As it turns out, sales tax holidays are more hype than anything. Not only do they fail to live up to their advertising, they generate numerous problems. For one, the complexity and administrative burden that sales tax holidays create can be mind-numbing for small-business owners. Tax holidays create unstable tax codes

THIS BILL WOULD RAISE

THE THRESHOLD TO DECLARE AN

EMERGENCY IN THE FIRST PLACE

BY REQUIRING A SIXTY PERCENT

VOTE OF THE LEGISLATURE,

MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THAT

ONLY TRUE EMERGENCIES WILL

GET PROTECTION.HJR 4218 “

”

Additional updatesBy the time you read this, other notable pro-posals will also be working their way through the legislature. Be sure to visit our website for the latest updates.

WWW.EFFWA.ORG

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

have a dream that one day taxpayers will not be judged by the number of expert accountants, law-

yers and lobbyists they can afford. I have a dream that one day, at least in the eyes of

state government, chicken will be seen equal to other livestock and that “differential fish tax rates” will not exist.

Unfortunately, the odds of this dream coming true any time soon are about as likely as Hillary Clinton showing up at EFF to ask for my autograph. Still, the unnecessary complexity and downright silliness on which much of our current state tax system is built deserves discussion, and the push for change should be stepped up, not abandoned.

More than 500 tax exemptions, deductions, credits and other breaks are scattered throughout our state tax code. These tax “preferences” add up to a combined tax savings of more than $60 billion for the 2005-2007 biennium. Yes. I said billion.

So what kinds of tax loopholes…er…preferences fall into this not-quite-vital-but-probably-necessary-for-the-betterment-of-children-somewhere category? There’s the much needed horse racing exemption, which saved select business owners nearly $5 million this biennium. It’s been around since 1935 so it must be important. There’s the “differential fish tax rates” I spoke about, and the “processors of dry peas” preferences. And where would we be without the “boats less than 16 feet in length” preference that saved some lucky mariners over $3-and-a-half million this biennium? Then there’s my personal favorite, “bedding materials for chickens.”

Dozens of our state’s tax preferences aren’t used at all. Take the “credit for taxes on syrup paid in other states” or “anaerobic digesters for dairies” preferences,

for example. These did not save a single individual or business even one dollar this biennium. This should signal policymakers that our micromanaged and overly complicated tax system could use an overhaul.

So why do these tax preferences exist? Because lawmakers are responding to the undue tax burden of select citizens and employers one at a time, rather than enacting universal tax relief for all.

Complexity itself is a hidden tax. The cost of tax preparation, accountants, lawyers, time, and other resources carries a hefty price tag. The current system imposes non-trivial compliance costs on taxpayers, while rewarding special interests. And if a tax preference for “bedding materials for chickens” somehow benefits the general welfare, then I must’ve missed that chapter in my high school civics class.

Washington’s tax setup allows politicians to pick winners and losers and use the tax system to impose their own interests on the economy. It encourages companies to squander resources on lobbying or to make questionable investments in order to obtain favorable tax treatment.

Rather than choosing private sector winners and losers, a more effective approach is to improve the

Iby Amber Gunn

A dream for taxpayer equality

business climate for the long term by levying low, flat rates on the broadest possible basis. A more uniform tax code would eliminate preferential treatment, help solve the complexity problem, and reduce compliance costs for taxpayers.

Fortunately, some progress has been made in terms of reforming the current system. Last year, the legislature authorized performance audits for discriminatory tax breaks. Though this bill does not eliminate tax preferences altogether, it does provide some accountability and perhaps will encourage legislators to rethink certain preferences—although I fail to see how anyone could consider eliminating “hay cubing” as a preference.

With a uniform tax rate in place, all taxpayers would be treated equally. It would stop preferential treatment based on the number of expert tax advisers, lawyers and lobbyists employed by wealthy individuals and businesses. It would reduce penalties against productive behavior, such as risk-taking and entrepreneurship. Probably most important, it would reduce the state government’s power over the lives of Washingtonians and get the government out of the business of micromanaging the economy.

“Washington’s tax setup allows politicians to pick winners and losers and use the tax system to impose their own interests on the economy.”

n two years, at the end of my current term, I will be retiring from my role as your State Treasurer. As of today, I have more

than 34 years in Treasury and public finance—including 10 years as state treasurer and 10 years as county treasurer—and I can hon-estly say that truly partisan issues have not come across my desk. The management of the public treasury is not and should not be a partisan function.

As your Treasurer fulfilling the Constitutional duties inherent in managing the state treasury I am guided only by the law, my duty to the public, my personal principles and my best professional judgment. Party politics should not, and does not, play a role.

It is true that as a statewide elected official I’m aware of the views of all constituents—particularly those with opinions, interests and desires to influence public policy. That is politics—but it isn’t partisan politics. As your treasurer my decisions are, in many cases, determined by law—state or federal. Although there are often decisions to be made which might be classified as “judgment calls,” those judgment calls are not—and cannot be—made with a concern for allegiance to any particular party.

So, if the job is not a partisan job, why should the election be partisan? In a nonpartisan election the better chance of being elected comes to the person best suited for the job—regardless of party affiliation. And that person, once elected, can then manage the office without being beholden to any party—or the influences that come form party affiliation.

In fact there is no reason, other than history and tradition that most statewide elected officials are elected as partisan—they don’t serve as partisan officials. With the exception of the governor and lieutenant governor, I think the rest of the statewide offices should be nonpartisan in the same way the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is now. All these offices, including mine, will always be influenced by politics. But statewide elected people, like me, do their work based on the law and basic principles of public service.

The negative effects of partisan politics should be an issue with my fellow Washingtonians. I believe the public is growing weary of partisanship, particularly as we’ve seen it on the national level.

It is a good idea whose time has come.

I

by Michael J. Murphy

Should the State Treasurer be a non-partisan office?

“In a nonpartisan election the better chance of being elected comes to the person best suited for the job--regardless of party affiliation.”

Comments can be sent to the Office of the State Treasurer, P.O. Box 40200, Olympia, WA 98504-0200 or emailed to wastreas@tre.wa.gov.

Michael J. Murphy, 59, is the 21st

Treasurer of the State of Washington.

He was elected in 1996 and took office

on Jan. 15, 1997. He was re-elected in

2000 and again in 2004.

6 LIVING LIBERTY

umerous attempts are in the works to hobble the people’s right to change the law through the ini-

tiative process. Most are designed to make it much more expensive and difficult to qualify initiatives. More than eight bills have been filed, most of which re-ceived a hearing in late January and early February. Among other things, these bills would:• Outlaw payment of signature gatherers on a per-

signature basis (HB 1087, Rep. Sherry Appleton, D-Kitsap; SB 5356, Senator Adam Kline, D-);

• Require signature gatherers to wear tags identi-fying them as paid or volunteer and, if paid, who is paying them (SB 5181, Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Pierce); and

• Require signature gatherers to sign an oath at the bottom of each petition form. If a form wasn’t signed, all the signatures on the form would be rejected (SB 5182, Sen. Kastama).

The initiative process can get messy, but so can politics of any kind. Regardless of how one feels about initiatives, our state constitution provides for them. It’s the law—a tool for citizens to use when a significant number of us disagree with something the legislature has done or has failed to do.

Because of our commitment to preserving the constitution, Sen. Pam Roach invited Jonathan Bechtle, director of EFF’s Citizenship and Governance Center, to testify before a senate committee on Senate Bills 5356 and 5181.

In his testimony, Bechtle focused primarily on the constitutional free speech rights involved in initiatives and warned the committee that the majority of federal courts have struck down these types of requirements as unconstitutional. He quoted a U.S. Supreme Court case that called petition gathering activities “core political speech,” and as such are entitled to the “zenith” of First Amendment protections.

Many other citizens and initiative experts have testified in opposition to the bills. Among them was Mike Dunmire, a private citizen who has been involved in several initiative campaigns over the past few years. After the hearing, Dunmire wrote up his impressions of the experience, which gives an insightful snapshot of

how public hearings should not be run, especially when they deal with such a serious topic.

My name is Mike Dunmire, and I’m retired and live in Woodinville.

For two weeks, I’ve joined other citizens in Olympia at three legisla-

tive hearings on various anti-initiative bills. And I am truly offended

by what I’ve seen and heard:

• Legislators ignorant about the contents of bills that they them-

selves are co-sponsoring;

• Repeated, purposeful misrepresentation of the facts by the Secre-

tary of State, misleading legislators, the press, and the public;

• Committee hearings where microphones are cut off when citizens

are speaking;• Legislators snickering and rolling their eyes during citizen testi-

mony;• Far-reaching bills with an "analysis" that is a single paragraph;

• Without discussion or debate, votes on bills with only two leg-

islators present (We asked staffers "How can you vote without a

quorum?" They refused to answer.);

• Long lists of citizens signing up to testify against these bills but

chairs limiting testimony to three minutes each for just two peo-

ple; and • Legislators sponsoring bills that the judiciary has already ruled

unconstitutional.

I am offended by their arrogance, their ignorance, their mistreatment

of citizens, and their disrespect for the Constitution. Their shameless

actions have moved me to do something meaningful to fight back.

I cannot and will not ignore their assault on the citizens' initiative

process without a constructive response.

Well said! The content of the bills and the conduct of the hearings show why government needs accountability and why it is so important for everyday citizens to provide it. Otherwise, it’s far too easy for the government to slowly erode our individual liberties—like free speech.

EFF TESTIFIES FORby Victor Joecks

N

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

ills addressing election issues are a mixed bag this year, with primary ballot changes leading

the way. Needed major reforms like proof of citizenship also were introduced, but are unlikely to gain a hear-ing. Last month we reported on the disappointing leg-islative request from Secretary Reed, but to his credit he has expanded that request to include several positive reforms. The current picture of election-related legisla-tion looks something like this.

Primary changesFixing primary ballots is a high priority for the legisla-ture this year, with a focus on the requirement that vot-ers choose a party for their partisan votes to count. A large percentage of voters in each county forgot to pick a party in the 2006 Primary, something election officials want to avoid in the future. HB 1420, aimed at remov-ing the requirement to actually select a party, is moving quickly through the legislature. Another measure (SB 5196) would remove the primary election requirement from nonpartisan races with only two candidates (as in a Supreme Court race). The race would be decided in the general election only.

Registration securityTwo different bills (HB 1468, HB 1774) have been intro-duced to greatly increase voter registration security by requiring voters to show proof of citizenship in order to register. Currently there is no way to check for non-citi-zens on our voting rolls, or to keep them from register-ing. Similar bills filed last year never even received the courtesy of a hearing. We commend the bill sponsors for continuing to push this important reform.

Secretary of State Reed also requested several regis-tration security fixes (contained in HB 1527), including closing a loophole that could allow someone to regis-ter with a false name and address and vote a ballot that would likely be counted. He has also requested that only felons who are in total confinement be prevented from voting. EFF believes that felons should complete their entire sentence, including paying restitution and fines, before their right to vote is restored. The Secretary’s request, however, does highlight the difficulty his staff has in finding and matching felon records against the

voter database. The legislature should find a way to make sure the data is available in a useable format.

Unfortunately, at least one bill (SB 5561) has been introduced that would reduce security by allowing registration up to and on Election Day. This “Election Day registration,” as it’s called, magnifies the impact of errors or fraud. In our current system, a window of at least 15 days exists to identify problem registrations before votes are counted. With Election Day registration, a voter’s ballot is likely to be cast and counted before registration problems are identified. Such a system also greatly increases the burden on election officials.

Ballot security and handlingInsecure mail balloting continues to be one of biggest roadblocks to election integrity in Washington state. One of EFF’s recommendations for improving security was introduced in HB 1438 to prohibit counties from forwarding mail ballots. County auditors also requested (SB 5271) reducing special elections from the current number of four per year to two per year. This reform would improve accuracy by giving more time in-between elections for reconciliation and preparation.

Enforcing the lawCounty and federal prosecutors have continued to make election crimes a low priority, blowing off evidence of fraud as too hard to prove or merely as mistakes made. In such an environment, it becomes more important than ever for citizens and media to be able to find and report possible crimes. Bills introduced in the House and Senate (HB 1742, SB 5566) would severely curtail these efforts by removing birthdates from the public record portion of the state voter database and limiting access to signatures on ballot envelopes. EFF has used both these records extensively to find double votes and forged signatures. While the sponsors point to privacy concerns, little evidence exists that identity thieves use public records to obtain information.

EFF is closely monitoring all election-related legisla-tion, and we encourage you to contact your legislators about the election issues you believe are important for them to address this year.

“We’ll never forget it.”

‒ Lynn & Joe Lightfoot

“I’ll tell all my friends and family to see this movie.”

‒ Audrey & Steve Kelley

“...I had heard some details, but this really brought it to life.”

‒ Bob & Marchia Voss

2007 Election legislation reviewLegislature addresses a few election problems, but major reforms still ignored

by Jonathan Bechtle

S U B S C R I B E T O E F F ’ S

AUDIO UPDATEE F F A U D I O U P D A T E

B

To get regular updates of the newest video and/or audio available from Evergreen Freedom Foundation simply subscribe to our podcast. To subscribe, either copy the url: “http://www.effwa.org/videopodcast/videocast.rss” into your rss feeder or look us up in the Itunes store.

For more information about podcasting, visit us online at www.effwa.org/whatisapodcast.

FF members gathered on February 23rd to watch the

premier of Amazing Grace: The William Wilberforce Story and to take part in a discussion of the film.

Here’s what some EFF members had to say about the film:

E

8 LIVING LIBERTY

erhaps you have heard that health markets work reasonably well when patients pay with their own

money. LAZIK surgery and cosmetic surgery are two examples. Yet, the authors of a new study dispute this claim.

The article is called “Self-Pay Markets in Health Care: Consumer Nirvana or Caveat Emptor?” It was funded by the Center for Studying Health Systems Change (an RJ Reynolds outfit) and appears at the Health Affairs web site. The authors (both non-economists) focus mainly on LAZIK surgery, but also include in vitro fertilization, cosmetic rhinoplasty and dental crowns. They do not find nirvana.

But first things first. Buried in the middle of the article, in the middle of a paragraph, with no bold heading and no mention in the Abstract, as though it were only of passing interest, is this amazing factoid: over the past decade, the real price of LAZIK surgery has declined

by 30 percent. Equally buried is another startler: The satisfaction rate among patients is 93 percent. And we can all be thankful the editor’s shears did not expunge this tidbit: unlike every other kind of surgery, in LAZIK surgery higher quality service routinely commands premium fees.

Is there some relationship between falling prices, high patient satisfaction, higher pay for superior quality and the fact that patients are paying out of pocket? The authors never ask this question.

Given that the rest of the world is apoplectic over rising health care costs and people everywhere are telling pollsters how much they dislike their third-party payer systems, you have to wonder. Either a) the authors are remarkably uncurious, or b) their world view is several standard deviations away from the mean.

The authors did find many blemishes, however, causing them to conclude that self-pay markets don’t

he new Democratic majority passed several pieces of legislation in a hurry. Many of the issues con-

sidered were driven by urgent national needs, but at least one—cutting interest rates on federal student loans—was far from it. If anything, the critical need in American higher education is to cut student aid, not expand it.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Making college more afford-able is a laudable goal, especially in light of the strato-spheric heights to which tuition has soared over the last few decades. But federally-backed loans regularly go to the wrong people—in 2003-04, nearly 30 percent of students from families earning more than $100,000 a year got them—and they make tuition more expensive for everyone.

Look at it as a matter of supply and demand. Say the average per-pupil cost of college is $100, and most stu-dents are covering it with loans carrying 10 percent interest rates. What would happen if the federal govern-ment were to slash those rates in response to complaints that college were too expensive? Almost certainly, stu-dents would be willing to pay higher tuition prices.

Of course, with their new purchasing power, many students would no longer be satisfied with their col-leges’ old amenities. They’d demand nicer dorms, bet-ter recreation centers, and tastier food, and colleges that wanted to compete would have to meet those demands. To afford those improvements, however, schools would have to raise their tuition, wiping out the affordability gains of cheaper loans, inspiring new complaints about college costs, and completing yet another turn in the college-cost spiral.

This is not just theoretical. According to data from the College Board, inflation-adjusted aid per full-time equivalent student grew to $10,113 in 2005-06 from $4,108 in 1985-86, a 146 percent jump that more than doubled the rate of cost increases and greatly inflated students’ purchasing power.

The result: “They want tuition increases to be basi-cally nonexistent,” Tulane University president Scott S. Cowen explained in November about many parents and students, “yet they want Jacuzzis in the dorms, small classes, and a number of other things. What gets lost on them is that these things cost money.”

Similarly, former Emory University president William Chace recently wrote that “the more you want us to give to you, the more we will be asking you to give to us. We aim to please, and that will cost you. It’s been a long time since scholarship and teaching were carried on in monastic surroundings.”

Despite the clear connection between cheap money for higher education, ever-more extravagant student demands, and skyrocketing college prices, many policy-makers continue to claim that aid is the solution rather than the problem. Instead, they finger an old favorite: The notion that states have drastically cut funding to their public colleges, forcing schools to raise tuition.

It’s baloney.According to the latest U.S. Department of Education

figures, far from dropping, real state funding for col-leges and universities has risen dramatically over the last couple of decades, jumping to $62.9 billion in 2000-01 from $40.1 billion in 1980-81. On a per-pupil basis,

according to the State Higher Educa-tion Executive Officers, while state funding has tended to rise and fall in cycles, in 2001 it actually reached an inflation-adjusted 20-year high of $7,124. So states haven’t cut their funding, it’s just been eclipsed by the astonishing growth in money com-ing through students.

Which brings us back to the obvious: A fundamen-tal cause of skyrocketing college costs is that student aid has simply been far too cheap and plentiful, push-ing demand ever higher and allowing colleges to charge ever-more exorbitant prices.

But why, if this is so obvious, do politicians continu-ally try to deflect public attention from the real cause of the college costs crisis, and champion the same-old inflationary policies?

The answer is politics, pure and simple. Politicians must have votes, and the best way to get them is to bribe as many Americans as possible. So they offer as much aid to as many people as they can, and give themselves endless credit for helping all citizens fulfill the American Dream. The political payoff is immediate, and besides, they figure, when things get worse there will always be time to do it all again.

Neal McCluskey is an education-policy analyst at the

Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, and

author of the upcoming Cato study Why We Fight: How

Public Schools Create Social Conflict.

Edited by Victor Joecks

Tby Neal McClusky

Cheaper student loans mean higher tuition

work, or don’t work very well. Although they never talked to any actual patients, interviews with people on the supply side revealed a market with inconsistent pricing and inconsistent bundling. (Some quoted prices include initial screening and follow up procedures; others do not). Worst of all: the primary source of patient information is word of mouth! Alas.

Here’s a personal confession. Before I go to the supermarket I do not know the price of bread. Nor do I know the bundles (is the sales price per loaf? Or is it buy one, get one free?) I would not be surprised to learn that most shoppers are just like me. But prices are not determined by what most buyers do. They are determined by the buyers at the margin.

It’s economics 101.

John C. Goodman is President of the

National Center for Policy Analysis.

Pby John C. Goodman

Do markets work?

he Evergreen Freedom Foundation is now accepting applications for seven summer

internship positions. Applications are due March 16, 2007 Preference is given to students entering their sophomore or junior year of college. Applicants must demonstrate strong research, writing, computer, and oral communications skills as well as a track record of leadership.

For more information, please visit our website at www.effwa.org/youngleader or contact Kristen Mercier at KMercier@effwa.org.

2007 YOUNG LEADERS INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

DEADLINE EXTENDED

T

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

ormer Secretary of Labor Robert Reich once re-marked, “In order to maintain themselves, unions

have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast.” What an apt description of organized labor’s current efforts to bolster its numbers.

The U.S. Department of Labor reported in January that the number of union members is at a record low. Over the last year union density declined in 31 states. Today only 12 percent of workers are members of a union, down from 12.5 percent in 2005. In private industries, only 7 percent of workers are unionized. These numbers have been dropping since 1983 when the federal government first began tracking this data.

Capitalizing on a new labor-friendly Congress, organized labor hopes to reverse its downward trend by implementing coercive policies that “strap” workers to unions regardless of their personal preference.

The so-called “Free Employee Choice Act” would eliminate the secret ballot elections currently used to unionize workers. Instead, unions would be selected by the “card check” method: the union would be recognized automatically if it collects signed cards

magine you’re the Washington Education Associa-tion. (I know it’s a big stretch for some of us, but

just try it.)You want to spend teachers’ dues on political purposes

without asking their permission. After all, there are quite a few teachers who do not agree with your political agenda and do not want you involved in issues not related to education, but you can’t let that stop you. The more money you have, the more political power, right? Sure, there’s that pesky Initiative 134 that 72 percent of Washington voters thought was a good idea, but there have to be ways to get around that, right?

You’ve tried to get around the law, and you were even fined $590,000 for using non-member teachers’ dues without their permission. You admitted breaking the law in court. You claimed you had no “fiduciary duty” to teachers (who are somehow under the ridiculous impression that they are paying you represent them).

For once, things went your way when the Washington State Supreme Court deemed the law “unconstitutional.” Finally, someone agreed with you that your rights as a union completely trumped individuals’ First Amendment rights, and that it was really too much of a hassle for you to have to ask people for permission before spending their money.

But that pesky Evergreen Freedom Foundation and a group of Washington teachers weren’t about to let you take a breather. You ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, and based on that hearing and some of the questions the judges asked, it seemed you and your case might be in some hot water.

What would you do?Well, you might try calling up

some friends in the Washington Legislature to help you out. After all, they might even let you draft a bill for them that would allow you to use non-member fees

on political activity without getting permission from teachers.

These new bills would effectively allow you to make political contributions from your general funds even if you co-mingled non-member fees with union dues. You can tell the press you just want to make the laws more clear (even though you’ve admitted to breaking them intentionally in the past).

Happily, your legislator friends see what an “emergency” this is to your pocketbook, so they introduce two bills (one in the Senate, one in the House) and slap an emergency clause on them. This means the laws, once passed, take effect immediately, while denying Washington citizens their constitutional right of referendum.

But what if the Evergreen Freedom Foundation had been anticipating your shenanigans? EFF might use this as an opportunity to work for much-needed emergency clause reform.

Face it, EFF will continue the fight for teachers’ First Amendment rights. EFF and its thousands of members have faced the obstacles you’ve put up in the past, and they will rise to the challenge once again.

Sometimes no matter how much you stack the deck in your favor, in the end, you just can’t win.

Iby Kristen Mercier

Walk a mile in the union’s shoes

Fby Michael Reitz

Give workers a choice

from a majority of the employees. The potential for harassment and intimidation is obvious as unions could target individual workers who resist unionization.

“There’s no reason to subject workers to an election,” said Bruce Raynor, president of a national hospitality workers union. Perhaps not when workers are three times less likely to unionize when the traditional secret ballot process is used. But does this justify abandoning the principles of democracy?

Unions are also aggressively lobbying for “union security” laws, which require workers to pay collective bargaining fees as a condition of employment. By some accounts, unions representing Washington’s state employees doubled their size and income after negotiating a union security clause in Washington’s 2005-07 general government contract.

In an effort to unionize new sectors, unions are also expanding the definitions of “employee” to include independent contractors who receive state subsidies, such as child care providers, in-home health care workers, and foster parents. People caring for elderly parents are shocked to learn they are obligated to pay union dues.

Organized labor is also attempting to eviscerate laws that empower workers. In Washington, Utah, and Idaho, unions are litigating against laws that require them to get workers’ permission before spending dues on politics. During this legislative session, union leaders hope to repeal Iowa’s right-to-work law, which guarantees that no worker can be forced to pay union dues. Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO and affiliates of the National Education Association have spent years fighting a federal requirement to disclose basic financial information to their own members.

It’s no surprise unions would seek to enact policies in their own interest, but government should not extend the force of law to keep workers in the fold. If unions offer services that workers truly value, there will be no difficulty in attracting and maintaining a satisfied membership, and the labor movement will be stronger for it.

Give workers a choice. Without it, workers are being treated as little more than floatation devices for organized labor’s sinking ship.

10 LIVING LIBERTY

lympia Middle School parents got together in ear-ly February at a community forum. The topic that

concerned the parents was a math curriculum to be ad-opted in Olympia schools. This program is called Con-nected Math Project 2 (CMP) and is in use in a number of districts throughout the state.

CMP is just one of many programs in Washington State that use the “discovery approach” to math. This approach is promoted by the National Council of Teachers of the Mathematic Standards (NCTM) who, in 1989, included it in their recomendations. Students are encouraged to discover math principles on their own rather than being instructed by their teachers as to the rudimentary principles. Little emphasis is put on traditional algorithms (i.e. short division, traditional multiplication) and much more is placed on the proper use of a calculator.

Remember the rote learning that many of us grew up with: 4 times 5 equals 20, 4 times 6 equals 24, etc.? Under NCTM standards, there is less emphasis on this kind of learning, as well as less emphasis on mastering fractions, algebra, and geometry. Curriculum that used the discovery method were adopted throughout the state in the 1990’s.

In addition to CMP, other textbooks in Washington schools use the same approach, including:• Interactive Math Program

• McDougal-Littell Integrated Math• Terc Investigations

The concern of parents regarding these programs is well-founded. Curriculums such as these have produced statistics that are embarrassing for the state and provide an unnecessary stumbling block for our children’s future. The National Research Council’s exhaustive report on K-12 mathematics (analyzing over 140 studies) concluded that there was no evidence of effectiveness with these programs.

One needs only to look at the WASL scores to realize this method is not working. Over 40 percent of Washington high school students have failed the WASL after two tries. What about the kids who go on to college? Over the last decade, math placement exam scores at the University of Washington (UW) have dropped 20 percent. Many students cannot work with simple algebra or fractions, and more than over 30 percent of incoming freshman to UW now require remedial math.

The Fordham Foundation puts out an annual report card on math curriculum for every state. In its latest edition, Washington received an “F” due to “standards that were poorly written, difficult to understand and at times had little to do with math.”

Meanwhile, in Olympia, a compromise was proposed by the school district. While the district insists on using CMP, they are now proposing that they also

use traditional teaching methods as a “supplement” to CMP. The reasoning is that while some children will benefit from the “discovery approach,” others respond better to a more direct instructional approach. Certainly some students benefit from the “discovery approach,” but most students, particularly young ones, benefit more from being taught the rudiments of math.

If the District feels that offering both “choices” would serve the students best, why not offer other choices throughout the education system to serve as many students as possible?

Perhaps Washington should follow the lead of California. They recently made the switch from this kind of “reform math” to a more traditional approach which includes emphasis on algorithms, geometry, and algebra. The results have shown stunning increases in performance, especially among disadvantaged populations.

Is there a silver lining to any of this? Yes, but it is a pretty thin line. It’s a great time for starting a tutoring company. In fact, the revenues of math tutoring companies in Washington State went up more than 300 percent in the last 10 years.

ecently, Utah Governor John Huntsman signed the nation’s first-ever universal school voucher

bill into law. Huntsman’s signing follows a lively debate in both Utah’s legislative bodies. The Senate passed the universal school voucher bill by a vote of 19 to 10, while the House narrowly passed the bill by a 38-37 vote.

Until now, school choice has been implemented in distinct geographic areas, such as troubled inner-cities or under-served rural areas. It’s been targeted toward economically disadvantaged or Special Education students. This time, though, the state of Utah took the approach that improving the education system for all students means education options should be available for everyone.

In other words, Utah students that are already in

private schools and do not meet the income restrictions are the only students not eligible. It’s not perfect, but at least under this structure, a true education marketplace can begin to flourish.

The dollar values of the vouchers run on a sliding scale from $500 to $3,000 dollars per student, depending on the family’s income. When a student uses a voucher, that student’s public school district continues to be funded as if the student were still attending the school for five years, or when the student would have graduated, whichever comes first. This was a crucial element in the bill’s success, as it killed the argument that public education would be financially harmed.

Of course, it would have been ideal had the education lobby and its supporters cared less for where the money was going and more about how it was used. Bu the

reality is that this is what was needed to make this bill a reality.

The reason for the success of this initiative comes, in part, from the vision and courage of three political leaders.

Governor Huntsman ran his 2004 election on a platform that endorsed school choice and competition as healthy for public

schools. “We must be mindful that 97 percent of Utah’s students are enrolled in public schools. It’s imperative that we keep them strong.” said the Governor. “Failure to attempt improvement in education through market forces means that we are not striving to improve our children’s opportunities for learning.”

Utah Representative Keith Grover, formerly a junior high school vice principal, said he supported the bill because public education needed the innovation that school choice could bring. Grover said “everyone knows how I make a living” and therefore realized how difficult the decision was to make.

Meanwhile, Rep. Brad Last, another former public school official, surprised everyone by changing his earlier vote to support the bill. He apologized to his former colleagues, but he insisted they at least read

the bill before they complain to him. Last believes that history “will demonstrate to supporters and detractors that this was a good choice.”

Universal School Choice is an idea whose time has come. Finally, a state has shown the courage and innovation to reform the education system to serve students, their parents, and teachers—Utah now becomes a laboratory of school choice for the nation. Successes and failures can be examined on a large scale, helping tailor future voucher programs.

When will Washington state parents be able to share in education freedom? When leaders in government, like Governor Huntsman and those in the Utah House and Senate, have the courage to take the heat and stand up against the powerful education establishment. When taxpayers realize education can only be improved when innovative options are available instead of annual funding increases given to the same failing bureaucracy. And when the citizens of the state decide that underperforming schools and mediocre test scores for our most vulnerable students are no longer acceptable.

Oby Steven Maggi

Concern of Olympia parents is the concern of Washington state

Rby Steven Maggi

Universal school choice now a reality in Utah

Utah students are eligible to participate if they are:

1. in a public school, or

2. they are entering kindergarten, or

3. their family moved into Utah in the previous year, or

4. they have family incomes at or below the eligibility level for free and reduced lunch programs.TH

E PROGRAM

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

I WANT TO INVEST IN THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Dear Friend of EFF,

While we welcome every gift, our greatest need is reliable monthly support. It is imperative for reaching our goals. Please consider monthly giving as a way to invest in the cause of freedom. Our secure e-Giving System ensures that more of your contribution goes directly to our work.

Cordially,

Please mail or fax in this form (fax 360-352-1874) or call 360-956-3482. We will send you a confirmation letter for your records.

Your Donations to EFF are Tax Deductible!

Bank Debit/Credit Card Donation Authorization I request my bank or credit card company to transfer funds in the amount of $ each monthuntil further notice. I understand that I am in full control of my donation, and that I can decide to make any changes or discontinue the service at any time by calling 360-956-3482 or writing to EFF.

Signature Date(required for bank and credit card donations)

Checking Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided check)

Savings Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided deposit slip)

Please indicate your preferred withdrawal date: 1st 10th 20th

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMERICAN EXPRESS

Credit card # Expiration date:

Personal Information

Name Company

Address City, State, Zip

Phone E-mail

...BECAUSE FREEDOM MATTERS!

I would like to give a one time gift of $

he IRS codes do not usually excite me in a positive way, but last year President Bush signed a provi-

sion into law that will benefit me and the charitable organizations I support.

This year I will turn 70 ½. Under the IRS tax law, I must begin withdrawing money from my IRA which, under the old law, would add to my taxable income. Under the new provisions, anyone who is 70 ½ or older has the option of transferring up to $100,000 in tax free dollars directly from their IRA to one or more 501(c)(3) organizations. (If you use this option, you can’t deduct it as a charitable contribution on your personal income tax return.) This transfer will count towards the mini-mum distribution amount.

When I heard about this new law, I was excited about the opportunity to take “extra” income from my IRA and donate it to a charitable organization without hav-

ing to bring it into my taxable income. This is great! I have to do something anyhow because I hit 70 ½ this year.

Anybody who is 70 ½ or older in 2007 can take advantage of this if they have an IRA and don’t need the income for general living expenses. However, this provision expires December 31, 2007. So please talk to your financial advisor or accountant for additional information to see if this new provision will benefit you and charitable organizations of your choice.

All I ask is that you consider making a donation to a worthy cause. After all, you do have to withdraw funds from your IRA upon reaching 70 ½, which would oth-erwise be taxable at your marginal tax rate (the top rate you are at). As an EFF trustee, I will be making a portion of my $100,000 as a donation to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. I urge you to consider doing the same.

(And it’s the only one I’m excited about…)

Why Am I Excited About This New IRS Tax Law? by Dick Rokes, EFF Trustee

“...anyone who is 70 ½ or older has the option of transferring up to $100,000 in tax free dollars directly from their IRA to one or more 501(c)(3) organizations.”

T

12 LIVING LIBERTY

his workshop is for any EFF member who wants to know how to make plans to protect hard-earned assets

now as well as when the end of life comes. Perhaps you have never gotten around to doing this. Maybe you have crafted a plan, but it needs a tune-up. Perhaps you turned your estate planning over to someone else to decide, and now you are unsure if you made the best choices.

• Protecting our assets against unnecessary taxes (espe-cially the death tax).

• Ways to involve our loved ones to avoid potential dis-agreements.

• How to consolidate our most important life values and translate those values into our estate planning.

• Choosing the most appropriate tools for our particular situation.

• Where to get help.

Please feel free to bring your attorney or any other pro-

fessional you may have already hired or are considering

hiring. No services are sold at this workshop. No one will

ask you to sign up for anything.

We are very careful about who we recommend in the area of planned giving. We have heard many horror stories. The experts you will be hearing from on May 17 are well known and highly regarded in their field. Bill Larson and Alan Pratt are Washington state natives with deep roots in their com-munities. And they love liberty!

Additionally, we have asked two representatives of donor-advised trusts to join us in the afternoon. They will give us a picture of the different types of vehicles we can use to distribute our assets, if that’s the route we choose. Many marvelous options exist.

It will be a day full of great information and good conversation, too.

Please consider joining us.

Save the Date!Thursday, May 17, 2007, Seattle

9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Seminar (Lunch will be served)5:30 p.m. Dinner (for those who can stay)

P l a n n i n g f o r L i f e

T

5 -17 -07

Topics that will be addressed include:

Attendance is limited to 50 people.

Irene Endicott206.718.6566IEndicott@effwa.org

Bob Williams360.956.3482BWilliams@effwa.org

For more information, contact: