The Daily Score blog - Sightline Daily

Boardman Roundup

Jennifer Langston — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:44:44

Oregon's only coal plant has been in the news lately - both for a showdown brewing over its fate and for the pollution that may be left behind. Here's a quick roundup of issues at Portland General Electric's coal plant in Boardman, Oregon:

Ted Sickinger at the Oregonian (who's been following the twists and turns of this story) reports that state regulators and the utility have been at a stalemate over how and when to close the coal plant, which will need significant upgrades in the next decade to meet pollution standards. Today, PGE made another offer. Here's where different players stand:

Oregon environmental regulators want the utility to stop burning coal there by 2018 or 2020, which would be decades earlier than PGE originally expected to close the plant. But they also want the utility to spend up to $320 million to reduce air pollution in the meantime.
PGE is threatening to keep the plant running until 2040 if the state requires the utility to make such a large investment. Now, the utility has proposed another alternative: close the plant in 2020 and spend only $75 million on new pollution controls (plus additional operating costs.)
Other groups, such as the Sierra Club, are pushing for a shutdown by 2015.

As we've written before, the state of Oregon is taking a gamble. It's not in the state's interest to have the coal plant operate until 2040. From an environmental perspective, it doesn't make sense to keep burning such a highly polluting fuel when there are much cleaner alternatives. And it would be an unwise investment--one that could hurt Oregon's ratepayers--to sink millions of dollars into a coal plant that would become uneconomical if future climate policies force polluters to pay for the right to release carbon. But the state has been pretty unequivocal that the utility must reduce air pollution in the meantime that causes smog, exacerbates pollution and damages developing brains. So it's a question of balancing all those goals.

And speaking of pollution, it's not just what comes out of the stack that's problematic.

A new report suggests that coal ash from Boardman and dozens of other power plants have contaminated groundwater supplies around the country. The toxic metals found in coal that don't get released out of smokestacks are left behind in ash and waste products. After being dumped in unlined ponds and pits, coal ash pollution can easily leach into groundwater (as one Montana town found out the hard way.)

The extent of coal ash contamination is usually difficult to gauge, because state and federal laws haven't forced utilities to look very hard for it. The report by the Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice says wells near Boardman's ash disposal area have shown elevated levels of arsenic, selenium, vanadium, chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids, which the authors attribute to the coal ash. What's more troubling, according to the study, is that groundwater in the area is used for irrigation at a nearby organic farm and cattle feedlot, as well as possibly for drinking water sources.

It sounds like no one can say for sure whether that water is safe because the utility hasn't been forced to assess the extent of any contamination. Apparently, there were no such requirements put in place when the state set environmental monitoring and release conditions for the plant in 1975.

That's why the federal government is proposing to regulate coal ash--to create a consistent set of rules that actually protect the public. But let's hope that in Oregon, at least, we won't need them for much longer.

Boardman farm photo courtesy of flickr user friendsoffamilyfarmers via a Creative Commons license.

Income Taxes For Washington's Neighbors

Eric de Place — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:09:18

When readers ask for charts, I can't refuse! So, as an accompaniment to my previous analysis of income taxes in Washington's "neighbor" states, here's a more thorough examination.

I've calculated the tax burden -- for both single and joint filers -- under Initiative 1098 in Washington along with the state's four nearest neighbors. I used annual income in half million dollar increments up to $2 million. Have a look.

The upshot is pretty clear, I think. You'd have to be netting simply stratospheric levels of income for 1098 to impose anything comparable to the tax liability in Washington's neighbors. Even at $2 million per year, a two person household in Washington would be paying substantially less than anywhere else on the West Coast or in the Northwest.

Of course, if you want to know how much you might pay -- or save if you're among the 97 percent of state residents who would see a tax cut -- then you should check out the 1098 tax calculator developed by Economic Opportunity Institute.

Over the next week or so, I'll be churning out a few more comparison charts like this for Washington's peer states.

The request line is open.

Notes: Figures in the chart are calculated by me based on data from the Tax Foundation. There is one methodological weakness: my analysis excludes personal exemptions and both itemized and standard deductions, which has the effect of slightly over-stating the tax burdens in states other than Washington. There are several reasons I chose to overlook these factors, but chiefly because it's difficult to provide apples-to-apples comparisons between the various ways that states treat deductions, exemptions, credits, and so on. That said, it doesn't much matter when comparing taxes at this high level of income. Without exception the deductions, exemptions, etc. are small enough that the result would not show up as much more than a rounding error here.

The Dirt on Organic Produce

Michelle Venetucci Harvey — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:05:04

Does growing organic really matter? Supporters of conventional agriculture say that organic farming is little more than a fad—and that organic produce lightens consumers’ wallets for no tangible benefits. And unfortunately, since agro-ecosystems are so complex, scientists have had a hard time cutting through the haze of claims and counter-claims.

Until now: “Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosystems,” a study led by Washington State University Regents professor of soil science John Reganold, is one of the most comprehensive, persuasive studies yet to show the nutritional and environmental benefits of organic farming. Its findings only apply to strawberries—but they do point the way to the kind of research that can, and should, be done with other crops as well.

The study design was both careful and comprehensive in scope. The strawberries were grown on 13 conventional and 13 organic fields, with organic/conventional field pairs located adjacently in order to control for soil type and weather patterns. The data was drawn from repeated harvests over a two year period, and the strawberries were picked, transported, and stored under identical conditions to replicate retail practices. And just as farming is a complex business, scientists contributing to the study range from soil and food scientists to genetics experts and statistics specialists, who analyzed 31 soil properties, soil DNA, and the relative taste and nutritional quality of three strawberry varieties in California.

The results are pretty convincing: organic strawberries are healthier, tastier, and better for the soil than conventional strawberries.

First, let’s take a look at strawberry quality. Consumers buying organic products consistently cite the health benefits of organic foods as a main purchasing motivation. Yet there is a general lack of conclusive data to back this up. However, the WSU study found that organic strawberries ultimately beat conventional strawberries in quality, based on a number of factors:

Organic strawberry plants showed fewer instances of post-harvest fungal rots than conventional strawberries, despite the fact that no fungicides were used on the organic fields. The study notes this finding may prove that organic systems help defend plants against infection through systemic-acquired resistance rather than chemical inputs.

Organic methods resulted in strawberries with increased antioxidants, vitamin C, and total phenolics. While phosphorus and potassium levels were higher in conventional crops, the study emphasized the importance of vitamin C and antioxidants in relation to human health; vitamin C from strawberries has been shown to have a direct, negative effect on cancer cell growth.

And for those who value flavor more than health, organic also outdoes conventional in taste tests. Consumer-sensory panels found little difference between two of the organic and conventional strawberry varieties, but preferred the organic “Diamante” variety for its appearance and sweetness over its conventional counterpart.

Then there’s the issue of soil quality. While consumers may be solely interested in the end result, farmers and food experts like Will Allen and Wendell Berry have stressed that high-quality soil is the basis for healthy agro-ecosystems. California farmers have relied on methyl bromide (an ozone-depleting toxic fumigant) to sterilize their soil for decades, and as a result have reduced soil from a habitat for microorganisms into a growing medium devoid of nutrients. Despite the conventional practice of spraying soils with synthetic fertilizers, the study found that organic fields contained significantly higher amounts of nutrients. Organic and conventional soils contained similar levels of most extractable nutrients, but organic soil had higher levels of zinc, boron, sodium, and iron. Organic soils also performed better through a number of biological properties, such as enzyme activities, micronutrient levels, and carbon sequestration.

But what’s perhaps most interesting in the study is the use of DNA analysis, which helped scientists establish that organic soils contain a significantly higher amount of unique genes and overall genetic diversity. In a time when global warming is creating increasingly unpredictable weather conditions, biodiversity is one of our greatest defenses against climate change (for more on this idea, look no further than activist and physicist Vandana Shiva, a compelling advocate of the social, economic, and health-related benefits of biodiversity).

Strawberry fumigants are a hot-button issue in California right now, making this study especially timely. While the negative effects of methyl bromide have been established, and it was technically banned under an international treaty back in the 1980s, the fumigant is still being used until a substitute can be found. However, the proposed methyl iodide, approved under the Bush administration in 2008, is possibly even more toxic than methyl bromide. In light of the study, this controversy is bordering on the absurd—why even look for a new fumigant when organic production clearly produces better soil quality, increased nutrient density, and doesn’t rely on chemicals that make farm workers sick?

For any naysayers out there who are clinging to the Monsanto line that conventional agriculture is the only way to feed the world, while this study doesn’t delve into crop yields itself, a 2009 report put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists may put that claim to rest. Despite the fact that in some instances conventional methods may marginally raise the yield of food crops (while genetically modified crops were shown to produce no increase in yield), this study notes it comes at a high cost to the environment and our health. The chemical inputs used in conventional farming are directly contributing to unpredictable climate changes, which will affect our long-term ability to consistently grow food.

It’s hard to argue against Dr. Reganold's findings. Even while some categories of analysis produced similar results between conventional and organic strawberries, the fact that organic methods did not rely on toxic chemical inputs is a big, juicy point in its favor. Promoting organic agro-ecosystems means fewer people will be exposed to toxic chemicals, all in the name of producing a healthier, tastier piece of fruit.

Strawberry photo courtesy of Flickr user leadenhall under a Creative Commons license.

A National Look at Tax Fairness

Eric de Place — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:35:50

Sightline has developed a new pair of maps -- here and here -- that illustrate quite nicely the fairness of tax systems in the 50 states.

In the map below, states are color coded according to the tax burden shouldered by the state's poorest families. The reason Washington is bright red -- the brightest red of any state -- is that the poorest 20 percent of Washington's families pay 17.3 percent of their income in state taxes. It's by far the highest amount in the nation.

See the animated data-rich version: The Poorest Families: How much do they pay in state taxes?

By contrast, the wealthiest families have a nice little tax haven in Washington compared with other states. In the map below, states are color coded according to the tax burden on the highest-earning 1 percent of families in the state. The reason Washington is so pale is because the wealthy in the Evergreen State pay so little in state taxes -- just 2.6 percent, which is less than their peers in all but a handful of states.

Again, don't just glance at the map I've included here. Go check out the animated version, which comes complete with numbers and everything: The Wealthiest Families: How much do they pay in state taxes?

Thinking about tax fairness is apropos for voters in most every state this year. In Washington, for example, voters will weigh in on a range of ballot measures that affect the structure of state taxes. Chief among these is Initiative 1098, which would levy an income tax on very high income earners, allow modest reductions to taxes on property and small businesses, and provide new revenue for state services like education and health care. The measure will not do much to reduce the tax burden on the poorest families in the state, but it does provide a good opportunity to improve the state's discussion of tax policy -- not to mention basic economic fairness.

Notes: The maps were created by Sightline based on data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which produces a detailed distributional analysis for each of the 50 states. ITEP's calculations factor in sales and excise taxes, property taxes, income taxes, offsets from federal taxes, and other state-specific features.

R52: The Olympian Makes Sausage

Roger Valdez — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:16:33

Last week the Olympian, the newspaper of Washington’s capitol city Olympia published a deeply flawed editorial encouraging voters to reject Referendum 52. Their reason seemed almost completely based on the idea that it is too complicated and would add too much debt to the state’s existing load. Contrary to Aug. 26th’s editorial, there isn’t anything complicated in the vote for Referendum 52. It’s a chance to invest in schools, jobs, and our future. And we’ve pointed out more than once that the increase in the state’s debt limit is tiny and wouldn’t affect the state’s credit rating.

What Referendum 52 does do is dedicate $500 million in funds over the next several years for upgrades to local schools. These improvements would reduce the back-log of maintenance in cash-strapped school districts and cut down on energy spending—creating savings that would stay in our classrooms.

It isn’t just schools that will benefit. In hard economic times, unemployment continues to be a stubborn problem in our state. Referendum 52 will spur new jobs in the hard-hit construction sector at a time when there is a severe drop in home sales.

As for the Olympian’s speculation on the financial impact, even State Treasurer Jim McIntire—the official who most closely supervises the state’s finances has said (listen to his actual voice here) that this is a smart investment for our future and our kids. That’s a big turn around from when we wrote our report on the negligible effects of Referendum 52 and the Treasurer was opposed to the passage of the legislation.

And two last points to correct the writers of the editorial. The passage of Initiatives 1100, 1105, and 1107 will have zero effect on the work of implementing Referendum 52. As we’ve pointed out before the bottled water tax does not fund debt service but simply goes into the general fund. Its repeal wouldn’t prevent the authorization and use of bonds for school retrofits.

David Ammons, spokesperson for Washington’s Secretary of State, doesn’t seem to get this and has compounded the the problem*. He said, as Publicola reported, that passage of Initiative 1107 would somehow affect the implementation of Referendum 52. That just isn’t true. And we’re working to get the message out to people writing and talking about the Referendum to be clear on how they communicate on this question. It’s simple: passage of Initiative will have no effect on Referendum 52. The bonds being authorized in the legislation are General Obligations bonds and the sections of the bill affecting the bottled water tax are completely independent.

The question being considered by voters this November on Referendum 52 is simple: should we make our schools better, healthier places to learn? That should eliminate anyone’s doubt about why Referendum 52 is important.

*UPDATE: Ammons has corrected himself in an e-mail. He writes that if Referendum 52 "is approved by the voters and they do away with the bottled water fee, the bond bill would still stand and the Legislature would pay off the General Obligation bonds by whatever method they choose as they write the budget and deal with debt-service. The water tax was part of plan that would minimize the impact on the general fund."

Photo credit: seemann from morguefile.com

Striking the Sustainability Chord

Eric Hess — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:30:33

I know music isn’t a common topic for our blog, but occasionally worlds collide and we get a look at public policy through the lens of pop culture. Two things caught my ear recently—one a rallying cry to get the next generation on board with electric vehicles, and the other a love/hate tribute to sustainability’s arch-nemesis: sprawl.

First off, as Grist notes, They Might Be Giants have a new song and video out called “Electric Car.” Ashley Braun rightly notes, “as a general…rule, songs about environmental issues are cringeworthy.” Now, I’m not going to say this song didn’t get under my skin a little. But as far as kids’ songs go, it’s not half bad. And the music video is actually pretty cool. Check out the video below the fold:

Next up, Arcade Fire’s new album, The Suburbs. What first got me was their new music video. Utilizing Google Street View, you plug in the address of the house you grew up in, and shots of that neighborhood are integrated into the video. While it’s not perfect, it’s a very cool notion.

But that’s just the start.

The whole album struck a chord because it’s a product of people—like me—who were raised in the 80s suburbs. While it scorns sprawl (I love the lines: First they built the road, then they built the town/That’s why we’re still driving round and round), it admits a certain nostalgia for the houses we grew up in and the streets where we played. It really zeroes in on the love/hate relationship I have with the ‘burbs.

The album paints a picture of crumbling suburbs—with endless sprawl and dead shopping malls—contrasted by the bright and loud city. It’s not really a condemnation of either, but more of a melancholy tribute to the stomping grounds of a whole generation—if not an anthem to a lost vision of the American dream where everyone has a back yard and a gang of kids to play with in the cul-de-sac.

Putting wistfulness for lost childhoods aside, The Suburbs—and Roger’s recent post on the decline of McMansions—raises a question for me. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic here, but as we move toward more compact, accessible communities (complete with electric cars, of course), what will become of the physical remnants of sprawl?

China: If You Can't Beat 'Em...

Anna Fahey — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:23:17

I've been observing China's canny advances in energy policy for years now. While we in the United States hem and haw and stall around, China is cornering the market on renewable energy technologies, creating Chinese jobs, and making technological advances on conservation and curbing climate pollution. David Roberts over at Grist has written the latest installment (better than I could) about how China is shutting down dirty, old coal plants. Here's Roberts:

Certain members of the U.S. Congress believe that America shouldn't do anything about climate change until China does. Putting aside the moral illogic of that position, let's focus on something China is doing: shutting down old, dirty coal plants. Surely once senators find out about this they'll be eager to follow suit!

As Roberts points out, "50 GW of coal isn't much in the grand scheme of things." China is, after all, the world's biggest producer and consumer of coal. And they're adding new coal facilities even while they shut down others. Still, this is part of China's official plan to invest more in the power grid and clean energy, and gradually decrease the proportion of power plants that are coal-fired.

Unfortunately we're not on the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" program. Here's Roberts again:

China's total coal consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions are going to rise for the foreseeable future; such is the inexorable mathematics of growth. Nonetheless, authorities recognize that shutting down old, inefficient power plants advances both environmental and economic goals. It removes the largest sources of toxic air and water pollution while swapping in new, cleaner, more efficient power plants. It also serves as economic stimulus, driving investment in and construction of new generation capacity. It's what a free market system would already be doing, if such a system existed anywhere on the planet.

Chinese officials get it on old coal plants. We'll see if Congress really does follow its lead.

Photo courtesy of MorgueFile, Dantada.

Troubled Waters for Puget Sound Partnership

Lisa Stiffler — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:47:39

The Puget Sound Partnership -- the agency leading the charge to recover the Sound -- has been getting a lot of public scrutiny of late. A critical four-day investigation by KUOW’s John Ryan. A scolding editorial in the Tacoma News Tribune. An unfavorable audit by the state in May. A second look at missteps in financial oversight from Gov. Chris Gregoire’s office.

None of it has unearthed a smoking-gun of corruption or gross professional ineptitude. But they all indicate that the Partnership needs to shore up its operations. There’s been sloppiness in awarding contracts that hint at political favors. A situation with a whistleblower went south. It’s not been pretty.

But what may matter even more than these transgressions themselves (the Partnership’s Executive Director David Dicks vows the group has tightened up its financial dealings), is the challenge they create when it comes to the agency’s core mission: Saving Puget Sound.

The Partnership cannot, in less than a decade, return the Sound to health unless it has widespread and enthusiastic buy in from residents, businesses, and the nonprofit community. Without that, the agency is sunk. And all of these recent hits to its reputation and public trust have left the group taking on water.

Here's what needs to happen:

The Partnership needs to demonstrate that the financial and management snafus are truly a thing of the past, whether that means taking steps to increase transparency in contract awarding, some potentially painful house cleaning, or both.
The Partnership needs to communicate. Get out there and make sure the public and the press are clear about what the agency is working on, what are its deadlines, and making sure they're met. News out today marks a step in that direction. The agency has identified 20 "dashboard indicators" that will be used to measure how well the Partnership is working to "restore, protect and prevent pollution in Puget Sound."
It needs to lead. Dicks was behind the times in terms of supporting a key Sound-related bill during the past legislative session. He needs to be out front come 2011.
And lead some more. Right now Ecology is developing new stormwater regulations. These rules are really important -- they outline when and how low-impact development must be used in the state. So far, the Partnership is just another voice at the table, and not a very loud one at that. The agency knows the power of LID, but isn't demanding that Ecology enact strong provisions for rain gardens, the preservation of native plants and trees, green roofs and other LID strategies.
The Partnership needs to live up to its name. Rumblings from the nonprofit community -- the groups that have folks on the ground doing restoration work and drumming up support for the recovery of the Sound -- suggest they're not feeling the love from the agency. Dicks and his staff need to get everyone on board.

Stormy Puget Sound photo from Flickr user Chas Redmond under the Creative Commons license.

What Minority Rule Looks Like

Alan Durning — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:16:11

Minority rule sounds bad enough in theory: undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unfair. But in practice, its ramifications become even worse.

If Washington voters approve BP-funded and Tim Eyman-sponsored I-1053 in November, just 17 members of the Washington Senate will hold veto power over closing tax loopholes and raising revenue.

Who are those 17?

In principle, it could be any 17 senators, but in reality, it would be the 17 most conservative members—the minority most opposed to closing loopholes and raising revenue. (For political junkies, I include a list at the end of the post.)

That’s a group far to the right of the state’s political center of gravity. Judging from their voting records, they are twice as conservative as the typical member of the state senate. All white, mostly male, and mostly from outlying places like Ritzville and Moses Lake, they are also mostly Republican. My argument here is not partisan, however: They are not all Republicans, and not all Republicans are among them.

The 17’s philosophy is as legitimate a part of public discourse as anyone’s, but no one should think that they are simply a few degrees right of center on the state’s political continuum. They are a distinct ideological minority, polarized away from the governing coalition in Olympia.

(Larger version of chart here.)

Consider their voting records. Several statewide organizations assemble legislative scorecards by selecting a set of indicative votes and using them to give legislators points. A legislator who always voted against a group’s recommendations would get a “0,” and one who always voted with the group would get a “100.”

The chart above shows current members of the senate by their lifetime ratings from the right-wing Washington Conservative Union (on the horizontal scale) and from the environmentalist Washington Conservation Voters (on the vertical scale). A point in the center of the graph would be a senator who had a score of 50 from each group. A point in the upper left would be a senator with a high score from conservation advocates but a low score from the conservative group. Conversely, a dot in the lower right reflects a senator who scored well on the conservatives’ scorecard but poorly on the conservationists’.

There are seventeen dots in the lower right, all of them between 80 and 100 on the Conservative Union’s scale and none of them higher than 43 on the Conservation Voters’ scale. And there’s hardly anyone in the middle of the chart. Most of the senators—25 of them—are in the upper left section of the chart—not very conservative and fairly conservationist. (The chart also illustrates how deeply polarized Washington politics are.)

Under majority rule, you would expect public policy to reflect the ideological middle ground of the senate—the point (marked in the chart) at which half of senators are to the right, half to the left, half above and half below. In this case, moderate state senator Chris Marr (D—Spokane) is the closest to the middle ground, so you would expect the senate to pass laws aligned with Senator Marr’s middle-of-the-road philosophy. I-1053’s imposition of minority rule would move power far to the lower right of the chart, making someone like conservative Senator Tim Sheldon (D—Potlatch) the senate’s pivotal vote.

(Larger version of chart here.)

This second chart substitutes voting scores from the Children’s Alliance of Washington, which advocates for child welfare policies and programs, for the Washington Conservation Voters’ scores in the first chart.

The pattern is similar. The same 17 senators are clumped together on the lower right (scored very high by conservatives and very low by the Children’s Alliance). Meanwhile, the majority of senators are in the upper left (with low scores from the conservatives and high scores from the children’s advocates). Again, minority rule would move the chamber’s pivot point (roughly) from the moderate Marr to the conservative Sheldon—a long distance in political values.

But wait. These two charts aren’t specific to the subject matter of I-1053, which is about closing tax loopholes and raising revenue, not our natural heritage or child welfare. I’ve been using Washington Conservative Union, Washington Conservation Voters and Children’s Alliance scores as proxies for political values.

Are they good proxies? Do these other legislative scorecards align with senators’ voting records on tax loopholes and new revenue? Unfortunately, no one assembles a state voting scorecard solely on revenue questions, but I did a short-hand version myself. I selected what the nonpartisan Project Vote Smart listed as the three most critical revenue votes in the 2010 legislature, when the state faced a second year of record revenue shortfalls. The final state budget closed those shortfalls mostly by slashing state services, such as healthcare for low-income families. It also raised a modest amount of new revenue by closing tax loopholes on out-of-state businesses that operate in Washington and by raising taxes on—or ending tax exemptions for--cigarettes, bottled water, candy, and soda pop.

The three senate votes in my short-hand scorecard were:

1. HB 2493, which raised cigarette taxes to prevent even steeper cuts in basic healthcare services than were already planned.
2. SB 6143, which closed tax loopholes for out-of-state businesses and other businesses and ended tax exemptions or levied excises on bottled water, candy and chewing gum, soda pop, and various tobacco products such as snuff.
3. SB 6130, which temporarily suspended I-960, the minority-rule initiative passed narrowly by voters in 2007.

Did 2010 votes on closing tax loopholes and raising new revenue correlate with the voting scores from the advocacy organizations? Does the pattern look the same? Yes.

(Larger version of chart here.)

In the chart, the same seventeen senators (in the lower right) voted against all three revenue measures. All have lifetime conservatism voting scores of 81 or higher and lifetime conservation voting scores of 43 or lower. With the exception of two others who joined the group of 17, all other senators voted “yes” on at least one of these revenue measures, and all have conservatism scores of 51 or lower and conservation scores of 49 or higher.

Seventeen senators is all I-1053 requires to block revenue measures, and the state senate has 17 who voted against all revenue measures—even in an unprecedented fiscal downturn. They also vote overwhelmingly against the recommendations of environmental and child-welfare advocates.

This group presents a strikingly different ideological profile than the rest of the senate. Their average lifetime conservatism voting score is 90, more than twice the average lifetime score of all state senators, which is 43. Their average lifetime conservation voting score is 25; the senate average is 62.Their average child welfare voting score is 52, compared with 79 for the senate overall.

They are a group apart, these seventeen. They are radically to the right of their peers. And I-1053 would put them in charge. That’s what minority rule looks like.

. . . .

Notes and data: Here is the list of senators, with their voting scores and records. The 17 are bolded.

Senator	WCU	WCV	CAW	Revenue Score
Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside	96	10	36	3
Val Stevens, R-Arlington	98	13	50	3
Bob Morton, R-Kettle Falls	94	15	50	3
Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville	96	15	43	3
Bob McCaslin, R-Spokane Valley	89	17	50	3
Jerome Delvin, R-Richland	90	17	50	3
Janéa Holmquist, R-Moses Lake	93	17	46	3
Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla	94	22	42	3
Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood	83	23	64	3
Linda Evans Parlette, R-Wenatchee	91	26	57	3
Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield	93	26	33	3
Pam Roach, R-Auburn	81	26	57	3
Curtis King, R-Yakima		29	50	3
Don Benton, R-Vancouver	83	30	71	3
Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch	84	33	71	3
Randi Becker, R-Eatonville		36	57	3
Dale Brandland, R-Bellingham	86	43	54	3
Dan Swecker, R-Rochester	87	43	57	3
Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley	85	43	57	3
Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond	14	49	86	0
Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam	51	54	100	0
Rodney Tom, D-Medina	34	73	100	1
Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island	29	74	100	0
Jean Berkey, D-Everett	16	75	91	0
Chris Marr, D-Spokane	21	78	86	2
Paull Shin, D-Edmonds	23	78	93	1
Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens	7	78	93	2
Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup	17	79	100	0
Randy Gordon, D-Bellevue		80		0
Claudia Kauffman, D-Kent	7	82	80	2
Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor	20	83	86	2
Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge	9	85	93	0
Rosa Franklin, D-South Tacoma	13	88	100	0
Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle	10	88	85	0
Margarita Prentice, D-Renton	9	89	93	0
Tracey Eide, D-Federal Way	17	89	100	0
Lisa J. Brown, D-Spokane	7	90	100	0
Karen Keiser, D-Kent	7	90	100	0
Debbie Regala, D-Tacoma	7	91	100	0
Kevin Ranker, D-San Juans		91	100	0
Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland	7	91	100	0
Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell	9	92	100	0
Joe McDermott, D-West Seattle		93	100	0
Ed Murray, D-Seattle	7	93	100	0
Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park	3	94	100	0
Karen Fraser, D-Olympia	8	95	100	0
Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle	3	96	100	0
Adam Kline, D-Seattle	6	96	100	0
Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver	9	97	92	1

The Washington Conservative Union’s (WCU) most-recent scorecard covers the 2007 legislative session and the previous four sessions. Consequently, it excludes more-recent votes and five senators elected to the state senate after 2007. To rank all senators in the list above, therefore, I relied on the Washington Conservation Voters’ (WCV) lifetime ratings. The Children's Alliance of Washington (CAW) scores listed here are only from the 2009 legislative session. The Revenue Score is the number of "no" votes (or, strictly speaking, not "yes" votes, as some senators do not vote, which has the same effect as voting "no") on three critical revenue measures (HB 2493, SB 6143, and SB 6130) in the 2010 legislative session.

The Young and Not-So-Restless

Clark Williams-Derry — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:47:17

This Advertising Age article discussing the massive decline in driving among young Americans is a bit old now. But it's both fascinating enough, and aggravating enough, to be worth some attention.

The basic facts are the fascinating part: young people simply don't drive as much as they used to. Between 1978 and 2008, for example, the share of 17 year olds with a valid driver's license fell by a third. Likewise, the share of total miles logged by 20-somethings fell from 20.7 percent in 1995, to just 13.7 percent in 2008. All the evidence points in the same direction: younger people are putting the brakes on their driving habits.

But while the trends seem real enough, the explanations that people are floating are far more suspect. On the one hand, Ad Age finds an expert who attributes the decline in driving to the digital revolution.

The automobile, once a rite of passage for American youth, is becoming less relevant to a growing number of people under 30...William Draves blames the internet. Mr. Draves, president of Lern, a consulting firm which focuses mainly on higher education, and co-author of "Nine Shift," maintains that the digital age is reshaping the U.S. and world early in this century, much like the automobile reshaped American life early in the last century...His theory is that almost everything about digital media and technology makes cars less desirable or useful and public transportation a lot more relevant.

This seems both right and wrong. The internet really is reshaping our lives. After all, you're reading this, aren't you? And the digital age does make public transit pretty useful -- as a matter of fact, I'm writing this on the bus!

Still, I just have a hard time believing that a third of potential 17-year-old drivers are too busy Tweeting and Chatrouletting to take driver's ed. Young folks themselves don't seem to buy it either:

The environment is the reason Gen Y-ers most often give for wanting to drive less.

Hm. I'm not sure that's right either. In fact, I gotta go with the explanation from the guy with the National Automobile Dealers Association -- who argues that it's the economy, first and foremost, that's driving young people's declining appetite for car travel.

And it's not just the recent economic downturn that's contributed to the decline in driving. Some trends are much longer-standing. Consider, for example, the fact that teen employment has been falling for most of the last decade. In 1978 (the beginning of the period that Ad Age looks at) about 48 percent of driving-age teens in the US held a job. By 2008, that number had fallen to 33 percent, and it now stands at just 26 percent. (Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.) And while I couldn't find reliable stats on the relationship between teen employment and teen driving, it's easy to believe that falling employment meant that teens had less reason to drive, and also less money to pay for cars and gas.

Likewise, the fall in teen employment coincided with both an increase in college attendance, and a decline in the real earning power of minimum wage work, particularly in the 1980s and the early- to mid-2000s. Rising college attendance may have contributed to a decline in the need to drive, while falling minimum wage earnings reduced teens' purchasing power.

And then consider the effect of rising oil prices. The chart below shows the difference between 1970 and 2008 -- a different period than Ad Age looked at -- but the lesson is pretty clear: by 2008, it was taking an awful lot of time for a young worker to earn enough money to fill the tank.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the internet, or environmental awareness, are completely irrelevant to the trends in youth driving. I'm sure they play some role. Still, it's hard to look at numbers without thinking that fairly mundane matters of demographics and economics (yawn!), rather than the Digital Revolution (sexy!), best explain the trends.

I shouldn't be surprised that Advertising Age, of all outlets, was more interested in sizzle than substance. But I always hope for better. After all, mundane matters of economics and prices -- i.e., making it costly to pollute, and cheap to live lightly on the planet -- may be our very best hope for reducing our impact on the climate. So it'd be good for every outlet to look for the obvious explanations before they seek out the sexy ones.

Wheels on the Bus

Jennifer Langston — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:46:02

I rode the Seattle streetcar today with my nearly two-year-old daughter. It was her first "school" field trip, and her classmates had been excited about it for weeks. There were lively debates in the Rainforest Room about whether the streetcar would be purple or orange. Edie, who wore her lavender shirt for "trolley day," picked wrong but didn't mind.

Her daycare class had prepared for the round-trip ride from South Lake Union to Westlake by learning about different kinds of transportation: making trains out of chairs, creating pictures with car wheels dipped in paint, watching seaplanes land in Lake Union, scooping up pebbles with bulldozers, reading books like Donald Crews' "Freight Train." But if my kid is any judge, it doesn't take much to get them excited about mass transit.

"Bus" was one of her first words. She startles strangers on the street by yelling it at the top of her lungs whenever she sees one. Yet she hasn't actually ridden on one yet. And as I saw how fascinated she was by the streetcar—looking at its reflection in buildings, watching the floor joints move, trying to lick the windows, I found myself asking why I hadn't done this before.

In truth, there are lots of reasons: in the beginning, I was overwhelmed by leaving the house at all with a new baby. Then there was era of strollers and bottles and coolers and bags that were hard to juggle. And just around the time we could leave the house with far fewer trappings—only an extra diaper and water bottle, she got squirmy.

But the real issue was that after spending untold hours researching carseats, installing anchors, wrestling one into the back seat, getting it checked, getting your kid into it a jillion times, double checking every time you leave the curb to make sure you didn't forget to buckle it in a sleep-deprived haze, the idea of letting your toddler sit in a moving vehicle—not strapped into anything—can seem a little weird and scary.

I admit that my grasp of physics and relative risk is not the best. And I probably knew that the images in my head of a three-foot, towheaded kid soaring through the bus aisle in the event of a fender-bender were not entirely realistic. But I hadn't done any research, and my gut-level aversion won out.

After looking into it, the mom in me still sort of wishes there were seat belts in buses (you can find plenty on that debate here and here), but here are some numbers that made me feel better.

A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2007 found that, statistically, you're far more likely to be injured or killed riding in a car than a bus. In fact, riding a bus is safer than walking, bicycling, driving a car, or hopping on a motorcycle. Whether the reason is that sheer size of a bus distributes the crash forces differently or that they travel more slowly, the raw numbers are pretty compelling.

Here are the annualized injury rates (based on 100 million person trips in the US):

Motorcycle: 10,336
Bicycle: 1,461
Car: 803
Walking: 216
Bus: 161

And here are the comparable fatality rates:

Motorcycle: 537
Bicycle: 21
Walking: 14
Car: 9
Bus: 0.4

The study also breaks down injury and fatality rates by age. Based on its results, it appears I'm not the only one who hasn't been taking their toddler on the bus. For children aged 0-4 nearly all of the reported injuries occurred while riding in cars or walking.

Now that I've seen what delight my daughter can find in a 1-mile streetcar ride, we'll definitely do the bus next. And I'll be mindful that we have a greater chance of getting hurt walking to the bus stop than riding on one.

Note: For other parents out there, Bus Chick blogger Carla Saulter offers excellent advice on riding the bus with little kids. She's a mindbogglingly competent car-free parent, but doesn't sugarcoat the challenges.

Killing Me Slowly

Anna Fahey — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:13:30

As a recent convert to bike commuting, I am keenly aware that I take my life into my hands each time I saddle up (See Jen Langston’s recent post on the safety of various modes of transportation—relatively, bikes don’t come out looking too safe, but, of course, car travel ain’t exactly without its risks either.)

But, if all commutes can kill, at least I’ll go down with the wind in my hair, a smile on my face, and feeling fit and energized (and smug, apparently). The point is, I get to ride my bike to work mostly because I have a relatively short commute. Many aren’t so lucky. And as new research shows, long commutes—car crashes and other accidents aside—take their toll in other more insidious ways—killing us slowly or at least causing some misery and suffering while we’re alive.

In fact, American workers with lengthy commutes are more likely to report a range of adverse physical and emotional conditions, leading to lower overall scores on Gallup-Healthway’s “well-being index.” Whether it’s time away from family and friends, sitting uncomfortably in a confined space, loss of exercise and recreation time, or bouts of road rage, long commutes take their toll.

According to the study, American employees report an average commute from home to work of 23 minutes (about exactly the length of my bike ride!), with average times higher in most of the country's largest metro areas. About one in five US workers (19 percent) spend more than half an hour getting to work, and 3 percent commute for more than an hour each way. The research doesn’t seem to differentiate between car or transit commuters—I mean some of these folks could be taking a bus, a ferry, or a train…or all of the above. But I think it’s safe to assume that the bulk of the results represent car commuters, and at the very least people who are sitting (not pedaling) for most of the commute.

Those who do report long commutes are more likely to complain of several health problems. For example, one in three workers with a commute of more than 90 minutes say they have had a neck or back condition that has caused recurrent pain in the past 12 months. Those with long commutes are also more likely to say they have at some point been diagnosed with high cholesterol and are more likely to have a Body Mass Index that classifies them as obese.

Those are some of the tolls long commutes seem to take on our bodies. But what does all that time sitting in traffic do to our minds? Here’s Gallup on the emotional impacts:

The psychological toll of long commutes may be as detrimental to individuals' wellbeing as the physical effects. Behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Alan Krueger in 2004 tracked the emotional states of employed women in Texas during their daily activities. They found that respondents' ratio of positive to negative emotions was particularly low during time spent commuting.

Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index results also point to a connection between commuting and emotional wellbeing. Among employees who take more than 90 minutes getting from home to work, 40 percent experienced worry for much of the previous day—significantly higher than the 28 percent among those with negligible commutes of 10 minutes or less. Conversely, workers with extremely long commutes were less likely to have experienced enjoyment for much of the previous day or to say they felt well-rested that day.

Gallup suggests that the findings should motivate employers to consider the social costs in productivity and creativity and turnover as they weigh decisions about location, transit and parking policies, and flexibility around telecommuting and other tricks for reducing the need to commute each and every day.

For my part, I used to take exception to cycling fanatics’ (some very close to me) holier-than-thou attitude. I guess I’ve joined their ranks now. But I try not to be too holy. And I certainly don’t suggest everyone can or should commute the way I do. Far from it. What I do think this study indicates are some real personal and basic quality of life reasons—forgetting for a moment community-level reasons like traffic, pollution, energy politics, global warming—to insist that we grow our cities in such a way that affordable housing is close to job centers, transit is accessible and convenient, and biking and walking is safe.

Image: istock.

For a larger version of the table and the full report, click here.

Broken Home

Roger Valdez — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:32:34

Recent headlines have been blaring about July’s huge drop in home sales across the country. Along with a drop in the stock market, the plunge in sales has also lead to a spate of discussion about how the housing market got to this place, and its role in the overall economic downturn the country is experiencing. While the news is bleak, there is a silver lining, I think, for sustainability. There could be a serious shift in attitudes about what housing means. Does the American Dream look like a single family house with a car parked out front? Or is it possible that we might revise that vision to include living in the city and relying on transit? We may be closer than you think.

In July the South had the smallest decline in home sales since June in the country with a 23 percent decrease, followed by the West with 25 percent, and sales dropping 30 percent in the Northeast. The Midwest was hardest hit with a 35 percent decline. Nationally, the fall-off in sales of previously occupied homes was 27 percent, reaching the lowest level in 15 years. Even though prices have fallen, people are holding off on buying, believing that the market hasn’t yet reached bottom.

The fall of the housing market is important because it is an indicator of the health of the larger economy. It’s an indicator because for the better part of the last 60 years home ownership was the driver in many aspects of economic growth. Buying a house was a way of building wealth. Take a loan, buy a house now, and by the time it comes to sell that house you’ll make a tidy profit—which you can use to buy a bigger house. That’s how the pitch went anyway.

The theory goes that this process of people borrowing more and more for more and more house went on, like a balloon filling with air, until it ruptured at the end of 2008. There seems to be some consensus emerging though about the larger reasons the bubble burst. Part of it was banks reselling mortgages in complex securities. But the other aspect of the problem was government policy that backed the loans for mortgages and gave big tax breaks to people buying homes. Here is Robert Samuelson—an economist who has written extensively about the impact of entitlements—in an article entitled “The U.S. Housing Fetish Hurts the American Dream:”

Government subsidizes homeownership in two ways: through tax and spending policies and through credit markets. Tax breaks for homeowners (mainly the deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes, plus preferential treatment of capital gains on homes) exceeded $120 billion in 2009, reports the Congressional Budget Office. These benefits go heavily to higher-income borrowers, who are encouraged to buy bigger and more expensive homes that generate larger tax savings. This is both unfair and unnecessary. By contrast, government subsidies for lower-income renters are skimpier, totaling about 25 percent of the support for homeowners.

True, runaway speculation through the repackaging and reselling of mortgages was what lit the fuse. But Samuelson, who is considered conservative, points out the most critical thing that caused the bubble in the first place: tax policy.

Tax policy (not to mention lots of free, publicly subsidized highways) helped shift the polarity of housing toward land use favoring big lots and big houses. Where is the best place to build the “bigger and more expensive homes that generate larger tax savings” that Samuelson talks about? Certainly not in dense, compact neighborhoods. The current tax code incentivizes unsustainable behavior while penalizing “lower-income renters,” for example, who most often bear higher proportional housing, transportation and health care costs.

And we know that density is better for a lot of reasons (energy, CO2, water quality, and tax revenue) I’ve already talked about in other posts. But that kind of development wasn’t what ended up getting subsidized according to Samuelson. Bigger houses meant bigger tax savings. Well those days are over; as we’ve pointed out, lots are getting smaller and so is the size of houses. This is due largely to the fact that people just don’t have a lot of money and that the market is getting pushed further down by reluctant buyers waiting for the bottom.

As I suggested last week, maybe the best land use strategy is not about revising local land use codes, or promoting more sustainable design, or even transit-oriented development. Perhaps the best way to achieve the dense, compact communities is to reverse the polarity of the tax code, creating a code that subsidizes living in those communities. Consider this tax break essentially a payment for doing what is most beneficial for the broader community and planet—an “urban homesteader tax credit.”

A local example helps make the point. A neighbor of mine moved out of our building and into a 182 square foot condo in a different neighborhood. (And I thought my place was small!) Here’s what he said about it when he was featured in an article in the Sunday Seattle Times:

'I wanted to compress my home to squirt me back out to the community,' he says, taking inspiration from dwellings in Scandinavia and Japan, places where space is dear. 'That was one of the philosophical reasons. I want to be able to shop daily, not store a lot and eat really well.'

Now imagine if along with the benefits he describes he also got to pay less of his money in taxes next year. That kind of tax break—typically reserved for home buyers spending more money on housing—could incentivize living in multifamily rather than single family for instance. Since the earliest days of our history the federal government has promoted behavior with subsidies. In the 19th century for example it gave away free land to people who were willing to move west through the Homestead Act.

The idea of an urban homesteader tax credit—providing big tax benefits to people who buy compact homes in compact communities—could help reinvigorate the housing market and make small not only beautiful but affordable as well. It might also lead to a different, more sustainable American Dream.

Photo credit: taliesin from morguefile.com.

The Goliath of Beets

Michelle Venetucci Harvey — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:36:18

As of a recent court hearing, a multinational biotech company feels threatened, thousands of farmers in the Pacific Northwest see impeding doom, and half of the US sugar industry is potentially depleted. What could be causing all this ruckus? The sugar beet.

This month’s ruling by US District Judge Jeffrey White halts the use of genetically-modified (GM) sugar beet seeds until an environmental impact study (EIS) can be conducted. The GM crop is resistant to Roundup, a Monsanto-produced herbicide, which allows farmers to spray herbicides on their fields without damaging crops. (The ruling doesn’t impact sugar beet crops that have already been planted this season, but will potentially inhibit new plantings until at least 2012, when the study might be completed.) Sustainable food advocates are ecstatic while Monsanto is looking at a potential loss in the billions, but Pacific Northwest farmers are caught in the middle.

Introduced back in 2005, sugar beets had the fastest adoption rate of any GM crop in the United States; 95% of the sugar beets in the United States are now GM crops, and beet sugar accounts for half of the sugar in the country. Many sugar beet farmers are concentrated in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and almost all of the seed comes out of Willamette Valley in Oregon. Farmers are worried that there are no longer enough conventional seeds and herbicides in storage to replace all the GM seeds currently in use. It’s not a surprise that they are uneasy with the court decision, since they may struggle to sustain their crop yields without the GM sugar beets.

This lawsuit stems from organic seed producer Frank Morton in Oregon, who was afraid his crops would be contaminated by nearby GM sugar-beet seeds. In a struggle reminiscent of David and Goliath, Morton has fought against the threat to his business posed by the rapidly spreading use of GM seeds. Contamination of his crops could happen if his sugar beet plants are fertilized with GM pollen carried by wind from nearby fields, seed cleaning facilities, or even passing trucks (It also doesn’t help that Monsanto’s GM seeds are patented, which means the company can sue farmers for unlawful possession of Monsanto property if land becomes contaminated, even accidentally, with patented seed). Not only would contamination render Morton’s crops inorganic and technically Monsanto property, but there are worrisome accounts of Roundup resistant weeds developing across 22 states.

Morton has been working with the Center for Food Safety since January 2008, and in September 2009 they won a case in which Judge White ruled that the National Environmental Policy Act had been violated by the USDA in its rush to deregulate GM sugar beets. (In order for a GM crop to gain nonregulated status, the USDA has to have proof that the crop isn't a plant pest or a threat to the environment, and thereby no longer needs to be regulated by the USDA.) Morton and the Center for Food Safety have since filed an injunction on the use of all GM sugar beets, which resulted in this month’s court ruling.

How did we get to this point? Back in 2005 the federal government approved Monsanto’s GM beets for unrestricted use, and their usage quickly spread. Farmers liked the fact that the Roundup resistant GM beets seemed to be increasing crop yields, and Monsanto claims that the “genetic enhancement of agricultural products” will ultimately make farming more sustainable through raising crop yields and better protection against insects and disease. However, the legitimacy of Monsanto’s claim has been increasingly called into question by sustainable agriculture advocates; a 2009 report put out by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) shows that despite 20 years of research and over 10 years of commercialized practices, GM crops have not increased US agricultural yields—and have actually driven up the price of production for farmers. Furthermore, while conventional practices that use chemical inputs do show a marginal increase in yield, the detrimental effects that chemicals have on our environment and human health are costly. The UCS report notes that conventional agriculture is responsible for “more heat-trapping emissions to the atmosphere than transportation,” and is a major source of water pollution leading to “dead zones.” If the effects of climate change, such as extreme heat, droughts, and flooding, make farming more difficult, why perpetuate the conventional practices that contribute to the problem?

In terms of social sustainability, groups such as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) found that the emphasis on GMOs has increased research and development in this sector, subsequently contributing to a loss in funding, support, and knowledge of alternative agricultural practices. The IAASTD has stated that investment in agroecological models (which follow whole-ecosystem approaches to agricultural development) offer environmentally and socially sustainable alternatives that are also capable of high yields under proper management. However, even though the promised high-yield of GM sugar beets is short-sighted logic at best, farmers and industry people are predicting economic hardship as a direct result of this ruling that suspend their use. It may be true that some farmers will be put at an economic disadvantage because of the ruling, but they wouldn’t be in this position if Monsanto had been held accountable in the first place.

It should be noted that White’s ruling isn’t necessarily commentary on the safety of the GM crop. Rather, it critiques the process (or lack thereof) that the USDA went through to grant unrestricted use of the GM sugar beet. This follows the 2007 alfalfa ruling, which was the first instance of a court revoking the approval of a GM crop until an EIS could be completed. At the time, the court placed a nationwide injunction of all sales of Roundup-Ready alfalfa, though the Supreme Court lifted the injunction earlier this summer. Monsanto is claiming victory, but the Center for Food Safety points out that the recent alfalfa ruling is the first to include genetic contamination from GM crops within the definition of "environmental harm."

We don’t yet completely understand all the implications that genetically modified crops will have on our agricultural systems. White had it right to take a more precautionary approach. It’s a step that can help create more accountability for agricultural regulation. Monsanto is becoming the Goliath of the seed industry in the United States, but in the case of GM sugar beets we'll see if David wins out in the end.

Sugar beet field photo courtesy of Flickr user Dag Endresen under a Creative Commons license.

1098 and Small Business

Eric de Place — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:03:49

Washington's Initiative 1098 has sparked debate about the impact of income taxes on small business. (See opinion pieces here, here, and here, for example.) There seems to be some confusion—as well as some claims on the outer edge of truthfulness—so I've put together a triplet of charts that may help clarify things.

First up, here's a look at how business owners would fare under 1098:

The data used in this chart come from research by the Economic Opportunity Institute.

What the numbers show is that only one-tenth of all "Washington tax filers claiming net business income from a sole proprietorship, S-corporation and/or partnership" report more than $200,000 in income, the threshold for I-1098's tax on single filers.

In fact, these numbers actually overstate the reach of the tax in at least two ways. First, there are actually more business owners than shown (those with losses) who are exempt from the tax, thereby shrinking the real percentage of total business owners who are subject to it. Second, and more importantly, a significant share of the business owners are actually joint filers, which means that they would be exempt from the tax provided that their annual household incomes are below $400,000. As a result, it's fair to say that fewer—probably much fewer—than one-tenth of all business owners would pay any state income tax at all under 1098.

Next, let's look at how many businesses would get tax cuts. This one's a two-parter.

Here's the picture for the state's Business and Occupation tax:

Data come from reporting in the Vancouver Columbian as well as research by Economic Opportunity Institute. (Both sources say that the numbers come from Washington's Department of Revenue.)

All told, the B&O tax reductions will mean that businesses in Washington will pocket an extra $250 million a year starting in 2012. And because of the way they are structured, the B&O tax cuts will be most beneficial to smaller businesses. The roughly seven percent of businesses that won't get a reduction are the state's biggest businesses.

Finally, here's a (partial) picture of state property taxes:

This chart is a little obvious I suppose, but the point tends to get overlooked: 1098 will provide an across-the-board 20 percent cut in state property taxes for all property owners, including individuals, businesses, and anyone else who pays property taxes. It's true, as some folks like to nitpick, that local property taxes are higher than state property taxes. But that oft-repeated claim doesn't change the underlying math: 1098 reduces state property taxes by 20 percent. (More detailed property tax savings are available from Economic Opportunity Institute.)

There's a clear benefit to property owners, but also a benefit to renters and lessors because landlords tend to pass along the cost of property taxes to their tenants. So it is reasonable to expect that even businesses (and individuals) who lease or rent property will benefit indirectly from a lower state property tax burden.

Needless to say, these charts can't illuminate how any particular business would fare under 1098. But I think they strongly suggest that small businesses—and small business owners—will actually benefit from 1098. Now it's perfectly possible, I suppose, that some small fraction of business owners will find themselves at a net tax disadvantage under 1098, but I think for the moment, the burden of proof is on the opposition.