An overarching religion among entrepreneurs in the high tech community is that we adhere strictly to the words, deeds, nuance, hints, complaints, positions, arguments and perspective of customers. We strive to hear the silence of what is not said as loudly as what is articulated.
When I knocked on more than 13,000 doors in 2008 in my first campaign, I felt a natural orientation to speaking directly with voters that flowed easily. I simply loved it and I think my business experience prepared me well for it. In connecting with voters at the Ballard Farmer’s Market this weekend I was reminded once again of the power of hearing the quiet reflection of the public not to loudly convince them of an idea, but merely to listen intently.
Lately I have reflected on the power of listening on a broader political level as it relates to the Democratic Party. (I shall not attempt to convey today my thoughts about the Republican Party but will save that for another day.)
I am a proud and engaged Democrat. The party of the people has long stood for the finest elements of equality, justice, progress, access and opportunity for real people living real lives that has defined and built our nation. We have led the great battles of our nation from the old to the new, from the status quo to a sense of the possibilities of our nation’s greatness.
Today, I must acknowledge that I fear that when it comes to the issue of public education the Democratic Party has lost our ability to hear the silence as well as the noise. We have lost our intellectual interest in challenging the institutional grip of the status quo relative to experimenting with new ideas, new approaches, new policies, new possibilities.
At a systems level, we have reached a point in our state where we have allowed innovation, experimentation, risking failure, challenging assumptions and questioning bureaucracy to be viewed as some sort of nefarious secret agenda to eviscerate public education itself.
Perhaps, instead, the yellow canaries in the coal mines of public education are calling out for help to modernize and update our 200-year old approach to education?
Education is not totally and completely broken in such a manner as that it needs to be scrapped. There is good in every classroom, every building, every district. It is, however, less responsive to the individualized needs of students than it must be in order to graduate 100% of students and send them on to success in post-secondary education, life and civic society.
I believe that the vast majority of the American public wants to see a sense of courageous honesty about a new approach to education. They know intuitively that a 73% on time graduation rate from high school is a deeply distressing reality for a competitive global economic reality. They see their own children in those numbers and they want us as a society to do and be so much more. Even the old idea that a high school degree is somehow a tool of educational empowerment is stale and disconnected from today’s reality. Some sort of post secondary education is essential to economic survival, and yet we see young people saddled with unimaginable debt and few options for careers.
We blindly accept that the natural course of the status quo will carry us through this crisis. And so we wait and do little to effect the change our state needs.
Regardless of whether you are the staunchest advocate for Barack Obama education reform or an ardent believer in our current course, it is hardly arguable that our state fails to embrace an open, healthy, vibrant public dialogue about education issues without retreating into rigid stereotypes.
Our dialogue around education policy is a poor reflection of our better nature.
Propose an education policy idea in Olympia? You are immediately classified in the internal context of two frameworks:’privatization-driven education reform camp or the ‘WEA apologist’ camp.
We are an entrepreneurial, innovative, creative and energetic state that listens intently to customers when it comes to some of the most influential companies in the world. Education is not a business: It’s big business. We lose credibility when we pretend that an Educational Industrial Complex does not exist that often prioritizes adult financial interests over childens’ educational interests.
But our public policy dialogue around education too often lacks a similar nuance and texture, depth and honesty, reflection and thought. We spend more time and energy rationalizing than executing. We seem to frequently launch a search for excuses and those whom we can blame.
Seattle’s inability to attract and retain great leaders is not an accident, it is a reflection of our unwillingness to own the hard work together of improving our schools and openly dealing with seemingly intractable academic challenges.
We have lost our ability to hear the silence of education policy. A proposal to allow six Teach for America instructors to enter classrooms will turn out hundreds of angry constituents but a major public hearing about a 73% on-time graduation rate is virtually empty? A modest proposal to allow a modest experiment with modest public charter schools to support our most failing schools–where perhaps 10% of African American youth are at grade level in math and 90% are underachieving–is viewed as a radical march toward privatization rather than a modest effort to try something new?
When Washington State applied for a Race to the Top grant and came in 32 out of 36 states, there was deafening silence in our lack of willingness to make it a teachable moment.
A standard operating procedure of the high tech community–debriefing and learning openly and courageously–was too hot for us to handle politically.
The Race to the Top experience was quietly filed away in a drawer in Olympia. There was no open discussion about what we could learn from the experience. The learning from thousands of hours of research, task forces, studies, consultant hours, parental meetings, teacher discussions and more were all lost to our fear of an open public discussion about why we scored near the very bottom in the nation.
The recent endorsement of Rob McKenna for Governor by the education advocacy group Stand for Children is easy for critics of education reform to dismiss. The organization is politically aggressive in the context of education reform and the establishment prefers to respond to their proposals with what some might consider patronizing contempt rather than engagement on the merits.
Stand for Children, a leading advocacy group for children founded with the hands-on support of progressive icon and Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman, endorses the top Republican in the state in an open gubernatorial race and the only response is cryptic denial of it’s importance? It is easy to rationalize, justify and excuse the decision as somehow innocuous or irrational or politically driven, but Jay Inslee is unlikely to be the next governor if he personally and the Democratic establishment structurally does not hear the silence of this quiet move.
Leading Seattle entrepreneur Nick Hanauer has argued that the Democratic Party has lost its way on the issue of education. The response to his clarion call to the Democratic Party is less about the moral outrage of an undereducated society in a global economy–and the substance of the issues themselves such as how to bring innovation to public education– and more about an anti-education reform litmus test.
This interim between legislative sessions a group of legislators is scheduled to seriously examine the funding options around the McClearly lawsuit requiring the state to fully fund the paramount duty of public education. The only path forward is a sense of conviction to work together: Teacher’s unions and education reformers, Democrats and Republicans, urban and rural, parents, teachers, students, business leaders and more. More money for public education is vital and essential but it is not the sole answer; the money must be wisely invested into meaningful results. New money cannot be seen simply as a ‘backfill’ for previous cuts, it must be seen by the public as an investment in something new and energetic and invigorating in our schools that gets to the heart of addressing a 73% on time graduation rate. In my progressive urban district, I hear the message that people want to touch and feel meaningful value for new dollars in public education. It’s our job collectively to figure out what that looks like.
Open and free access to a world-class education is the opportunity that defines the creation of America’s middle class and our social system of civic and economic engagement. Everyone wants to lift up our state and nation to prepare our children for tomorrow’s challenges. What unites us is so much more powerful and alive than what divides us.
I am proud to stand with Barack Obama in my belief that education reform is not an optional department down the hall. The question is whether the Democratic Party will shake free of the institutional grip of the status quo or whether we as a party and a movement will rejuvenate our nation’s deeply held belief in change.
None of this is to suggest that any one policy idea is the magic solution. But charting a course forward requires us to hear the silence of the children as well as the noise of the grownups. It’s not anti-union to question the inability of a principal to select a teacher for her building. It’s not anti-education reform to ask that teacher evaluations be conducted with dignity and fairness.
If you listen intently and purposely, I believe you can hear the people of our state making the case that world-class public education is not a department down the hall in Olympia. It’s the gig.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service
Reuven.
For the past few weeks I’ve been in engulfed in a fun, engaging whirlwind of concentric circles of personal reflection.
First, the 2012 Legislative Session slammed into a final conclusion with a intense 22 hour marathon. Second, I returned full force at a critical time with my company in the software industry. Third, my daughter Liat’s Bat Mitzvah occurred where the blessings of family and friend descended upon us. And fourth, my mother’s newly published memoir–Torch in the Dark–arrived in a box in the mail.
Items one through three are the relatively normal comings and goings of a husband, father, entrepreneur and citizen legislator. Number four, however, is both more unusual and strangely emotionally demanding.
I’m proud of my mother’s accomplishment even if I naturally don’t necessarily see everything through the same lens that she presents.
It’s a strange enough feeling to read about some of the most intimate, difficult, emotionally charged and intense moments of your life in the third person. It’s even more unusual to do so as a part of someone else’s story even if that ‘someone else’ is one’s mother.
Hadiyah has been writing her memoir and honing her skills as a writer for ten to 12 years and has boxes of additional material that didn’t make the final edit.
Since most readers here haven’t read her book, I’ll say that it’s the story of her struggle as a single mother in the turbulent streets and hippie communes of 1960s and 1970s as she journeys toward emotional recovery and economic self-reliance as a union welder. Many of the stories that she selects seem like yesterday, and the color, nuance and richness of the events are in high definition. It’s raw, punchy and direct. It’s painful and perhaps even funny. But it’s her story, not mine.
My feelings overall are driven by a sense of amazement that I am here at all. Alive. Connected. Spiritually engaged in a life oriented around fatherhood, marriage, work and service to the community. I have sometimes spoken openly about the chaos of my childhood, sometimes used to political advantage the story of my mother’s pioneering efforts as a woman in the trades, sometimes felt deep shame and humiliation for those things I did not learn about the norms and values fostered in a more traditional home setting, but I always recognized that I had to look deep within me myself find the strength to deal with the emotional roller coaster of my life.
One story: When I hitchhiked with Willie, an 18-year old ‘friend’ across the country at age seven it was an extraordinary, strange, interesting, exciting, frightening and daring trip. Hadiyah writes about how she drove us to the entrance of Interstate 5 in Bellingham (Lakeway Drive, I remember it vividly) and dropped us off, we looked at one another as we stood alongside the road and said, “I can’t believe she’s letting us do this, doesn’t this seem a little over the top?!” After our second ride the novelty wore off and I realized quickly that this was serious business in terms of safety, responsibility and keeping my wits about me. I wasn’t frightened as much as thoughtful and somber about the importance of adding value to Willie as he tried to figure out the next ride, next location, where to sleep, what to eat. It was survival along the highway jungle and something told me that my job was to keep it all together and not let fear drive behavior.
Fortunately, in 1972, rides came easily and we rarely had to wait too long. The looks of amazement on the faces of those who picked us up can only be described as pure astonishment. Mostly truck drivers but also families with vans, couples and so many others.
We were stranded in Denver for hours along a busy, dangerous, loud highway. I was chilled to the bone and for the first time I was seriously afraid, a sense of terror gripping me that we would be crushed under the weight of a passing truck that didn’t see us along the side of the interstate. As the time passed I more than once visualized my small body thrown across the highway as the massive rigs roared by. I gripped the side of the highway and turned my back to the traffic as Willie searched the eyes of passing drivers for a ride. A giant truck finally stopped and swept us into the safety of the cab, away from the dangerous road.
My favorite ride was a group of young men in a small sports car with a nice big dog in the back. We crammed our way into the car and it soon became clear that our hosts were out and about in a small town, rural party mood. They were drinking heavily, speeding and laughing all the way. Once they realized the extent of our situation and their unique guests, they resolved that they would help us go as far as possible. Since we were somewhere near the western side of Wyoming, there was almost nothing for miles and miles and miles. My recollection is that they drove us nearly all night long as I sat in the back listening to Willie and our hosts talk about life, adventure, risk and seeing the country in an almost Jack Kerouac cliche. I recall waking as the sun rose along the beautiful Wyoming prairie and our hosts having a near coronary of distress with the realization that they had driven us hundreds of miles and they would not make it back home in time for work. They dropped us off, turned around and headed back west.
We continued on for a total of 6 to 8 days. We found a place to stay at generous strangers’ home’s each night. Only once did I feel a sense of extreme discomfort when I could sense activity inappropriate to a young kid. Finally, arriving in Atlanta, the story and energy and ability to keep it together fell apart, Willie was tired of it all, and I could tell it was simply over. I called my grandfather who arranged a flight to Newark, New Jersey. I was completely exhausted but also aware that I had done something totally, completely outside of the normal bounds of common sense and even reality. At one point, I even found myself laughing a bit at the absurdity of it all and Willie and I decided that we deserved merit badges of some sort. I thought of my friend at home in Bellingham in Cub Scouts who received a merit badge for helping a neighbor weed her garden.
The stories and reflections go on.
For me, I realized early on that I had to fine-tune a sophisticated sense of emotional intelligence to survive. Knowing that I often had to rely on myself to get fed, dressed, back and forth to school and educated in other ways, and make some money, it occurred to me that finding safe adults who would offer their mentorship and support was vital. I have been fortunate to find many such mentors: Jack O’Connor, Melody Miller, Featherstone Reid.
There is not a day that goes by that I don’t reflect upon the journey to this time and place. There is not a moment that does not pass that I don’t feel the deepest spiritual appreciation for the luck, blessing, gift of having survived through the difficult years of Hadiyah’s experience and having the opportunity to raise a family. Sometimes I stop in the hallway of my own home and look at the stunning view from Queen Anne of Seattle, Elliot Bay, ferries and reflect upon the good fortune of being alive. When Mt. Rainier is shining in the distance from my bedroom window, the view of the volcano takes me back to my old room in our house in Bellingham when I used to stare through another window in another lifetime at the snow covered Mt. Baker. I stood for hours at that window struggling to make sense of the emotional chaos, fear, anger, resentment and pain that circled around me. And somehow even at times finding peace and humor.
Like all of us, I have many faults, many challenges, many weaknesses. I feel my own failings deeply and am hard on myself for those things I do not do well. But one quality I do posses and that stays with me each and everyday when I open my eyes: Gratitude for the beautiful gift of life.
I hope you will read Hadiyah’s book. You can find out more about it at www.torchinthedark.com. You can purchase it here on Amazon although the Kindle version won’t be available until summer. I’m proud of her accomplishment in writing it. Maybe one day I’ll write my own.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Quick Recap of the ’12 Legislative Sessions
First, let me apologize for the three week silence since my last post. It’s not like me to ‘go dark’ on this blog for such a long period of time but a combination of family obligations (my daughter’s Bat Mitzvah, return to full time non-Legislative work, post-session decompression) led me to focus elsewhere. Still, I should have just said so instead of ‘checking out.’ I think I was a bit more exhausted than I led myself to believe.
Here is a repost of a guest blog entry that ran on My Ballard, Queen Anne View, PhinneyWood, Magnolia Voice in the past few days:
Rep. Carlyle’s recap of the legislative session
Posted by Meghan Walker on April 23rd, 2012
State Representative Reuven Carlyle is back from a busy legislative session in Olympia, and he’s sent us a recap of what happened in the last few months in our capitol.
The 2012 legislative sessions are now complete in Olympia and it’s a joy to reconnect with my family and friends in Seattle! While serving as your part-time citizen legislator is a genuine and meaningful honor, it’s also a challenge when we fail to reach agreement on the budget in a timely fashion. My top priority this year was to stop the unwise budget cuts to Seattle schools, University of Washington and other priorities while protecting the core safety net for foster youth, health care and other vital human services.
Here’s a quick overview of the Legislature’s work this year.
Budget
In recent years state revenues have slowed dramatically while demand for public schools and costs of health care soared. Due primarily to our inefficient tax structure, we entered the 2012 session with a projected deficit of $1.7 billion. As a member of the powerful Ways & Means Committee, I have worked hard to prioritize public education and balance the budget responsibly while protecting vital public services such as Basic Health Plan, child care support, public health, and job training. In the end I supported and we adopted a supplemental budget that—for the first time in four years—avoids additional cuts to education. I continue to strive to make meaningful improvements in reducing unnecessary spending and ensuring that we produce a budget that is both morally and fiscally responsible. Here is a link to a table you might find interesting. It shows how negotiations unfolded and the Legislature was able to maintain funding for many of our state’s most important programs in comparison to other budget proposals.
Key Bill Passage
The blessings of marriage
The 2012 Legislature took a profoundly meaningful and historic step forward in the journey for equality by honoring the right of gays and lesbians to celebrate the blessings of marriage. I am proud to have co-sponsored the Marriage Equality bill in the House and join with many legislative colleagues, newspapers, Microsoft, Starbucks and other leading companies to support the marriage rights of all. Assuming the bill survives the expected referendum challenge this November, Washington will become the seventh state to legally recognize the right of gay and lesbians to marry.
World-class Public Infrastructure and Jobs Now!
To take advantage of historically low-interest rates and help jump-start the economy, we crafted a bipartisan “Jobs Now” construction budget to invest in our public infrastructure. From K-12 schools and university buildings and state parks development and repairs, we are investing in vital public buildings and facilities that support everyone’s quality of life. As a legislator I have stood firmly against excessive borrowing for short-term spending needs or operational budgets. In this legislation, the long-term interest rates are low and our investment in public infrastructure statewide is a long term benefit for our state’s 6.8 million people. In the short and long term, this investment will also help generate more than
9,000 jobs in Seattle and statewide.
My 2012 legislation
Supporting Our Kids in Foster Care
Improving the safety, health and education of our state’s 10,000 youth in foster care remains a moral driver of my legislative service. Less than 3% of foster youth ever achieve the dream of a college education while ten times that number will enter our criminal justice system. My dream is to reverse these numbers. I am proud to have taken a big step toward that goal this year with the passage of HB 2254 that reforms, funds and extends the nationally regarded “Passport to College” program that I first crafted as a volunteer citizen activist before my first election in 2008. The program provides outreach, tuition and living support and vital information to foster youth about higher education opportunities.
Open Educational Resources: e-Textbooks
Taxpayers spend a ridiculous $64 million a year (local and state dollars) on K-12 textbooks yet the average age for books in the classroom is ten years old! Textbooks in virtually every Seattle school and statewide are expensive, stale, and academically generic. This session I sponsored and the Legislature passed HB 2337, a bill that helps our state’s 295 school districts easily and affordably access, understand and utilize open source textbooks for one million K-12 students. This high quality, peer reviewed content is based upon Common Core standards and is simple, easy and in most cases free. My hope and expectation is that it will save students and taxpayers tens of millions in the years to come.
Tax Exemptions, Credits and Preferential Rates
This session, I sought to spark a courageous conversation about our state’s lack of fiduciary oversight of the 640 tax preferences, credits and preferential rates. In my view the Legislature has failed to objectively and rigorously examine both the spending and revenue sides of the ledger. Under I-1053, a simple majority of legislators can create a tax exemption yet a 2/3 vote of the 147 legislators to adjust, modify or terminate a tax exemption. I am a party to a legal challenge by the League of EducationVoters to I-1053 because I believe this policy is unconstitutional and assaults the Legislature’s ability to responsibly manage the state’s finances. Among the tax exemption bills I introduced this year, but did not pass:
HB 2762 would place an expiration date on over 250 B&O and sales tax exemptions that currently lack one, expressly excluding personal exemptions like food and prescription drugs.This legislation would require virtually all exemptions to expire after ten years on a rolling schedule unless reauthorized by the Legislature. It’s ridiculous that today many exemptions are not even forced to prove that they deliver a return on investment for taxpayers. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue but rather a matter of responsible fiscal sense.
HB 2532 reauthorizes, reforms, and resizes the current B&O high-tech research & development tax credit. The bill maintains the credit for small, early-stage technology companies but asks larger companies with revenues over $25 million a year to contribute most of their credit dollars toward producing college graduates in high-demand science, technology, and research fields at the University of Washington and other state colleges.
Community Capital Projects
Each year the Legislature provides funding to a number of construction projects that preserve and promote arts, culture, commerce, and community. This year I am proud to have worked extremely hard to secure $995,000 for the Phinney Neighborhood Association (PNA) to assist with building renovations, repairs and improvements. The PNA is part of the soul of the 36th District and I look forward to strengthening this important community facility for generations to come.
Stay Connected
There is even more information available about the work we have done this session online. Find more details on the state budget and all of the bills I sponsored here. My blog at www.reuvencarlyle36.com remains among the most widely-read site by a legislator in the nation. Please reach out to me anytime and share your thoughts, concerns and priorities. Reuven.carlyle@leg.wa.gov or call (206) 216-3184.
Thank you for the honor of serving you in the Legislature.
Your partner in service,
Reuven
In the frantic battle underway to conclude the Special Session of the 2012 Legislative season, the real world elbows its way into the halls of Olympia as many of us hunger to reconnect with our families and make room for the spiritual blessings of Passover and Easter.
The Special Session has endured for nearly a month with the governor and legislative leaders locked daily in budget rooms while vote counting, debates, staff analysis, financial studies and policy discussions circle outside. For much of the time a majority of legislators have been at home with the occasional conference call, electronic vote count and meeting. For the past week we have been in Olympia day and night struggling to reach consensus on a ‘go home’ package of budget and policy bills.
As the bright cherry blossoms of the Capital Campus explode, and the Spring sun warms the dome, it’s hard not to drift away from inside-game, hard ball politics toward the more gentle reflections that come from appreciating the honor of serving the public as an elected citizen legislator.
Anonymous blog post commenters joyously attack the values, integrity and ethics of those in public office—the dreaded ‘politician’—but most citizens hopefully acknowledge on some private level that we are real people living real lives who so appreciate the opportunity to serve our communities. We agonize over the complexity of policy options and the seriousness of our work. Writing multi billion budgets and the taxes to support them is not easy.
While editorials freely criticize the Legislature for not simply reaching consensus almost regardless of the policy implications, the process of representative democracy is designed to slowly and reflectively reduce the fervency of partisan demands.
Sometimes it works smoothly and sometimes it does not. When one chamber, the Senate in today’s situation, is effectively deadlocked the incentive of individuals is to magnify their power and hold the broader budget hostage to specific policy priorities. It’s the nature of a democratic system in some way and even understandable. The challenge for those who see the influence of their individual votes strengthened is to realize their actions have profound consequences on a broader level.
All 147 legislators have a special relationship with the public as duly elected representatives of the people. It is circumstances of timing and numbers that leads some to elevate their willingness to play hardball and take advantage of their positions. While I understand it, and can even appreciate the theater in this particular situation, I worry about the more systemic political implications both inside and outside of the halls of state government in the long run.
Each of us takes our obligation seriously and the public has a right to expect a rigorous objective analysis of policies that should stand on their own. When a policy bill that may not have support on its own merits is required as a condition of a budget deal, it should at least be openly acknowledged for the public to understand. To hold a budget vote hostage for a policy bill that otherwise would not have a majority of 147 elected legislators may be standard operating procedure in the world of politics, but such moves ferment cynicism among the people we represent.
We mourn the lack of the public’s belief in the dignity and integrity of public service. Both the public and elected officials are complacent in building some level of institutional and societal disengagement: The public for continually demanding more public services without taxes and elected officials for continually attempting to grant their wishes.
In a different generation, when John F. Kennedy rose to challenge the better side of our nation’s nature and believe in the common good, we collectively reached out to serve our society. While the ‘Mad Men’ era was rife with obnoxious moral and philosophical inconsistencies, it was also a time of romantic communal beliefs about the possibilities of our society. “Ask not” was more than a rhetorical hook, it touched something deeper inside of our society.
It is certain that hardball, inside political negotiations and tactics are nothing new in Olympia, Washington, D.C. or anywhere else. It’s part of the fun and intrigue, tension and opportunity of politics and government. But this week as we enter Passover and Easter—as the real life importance of family, community and spiritual engagement rises—there is value in reflecting upon the implications of such games on our system of representative democracy.
In my view, such tactics do not appeal to our higher nature. they do not reflect the values of our citizens and they do not serve us well.
The humility of servant leadership is represented in my faith by Moses, a gentle soul whom G-d selected as a prophet to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt to the Land of Israel. Moses engaged in among the most difficult political negotiations of all times.
Sometimes I wish those in public life today could see that when you embrace your work with righteous honesty and transparent respect, you lift up society rather than tear it down. You raise the level of respect, support and communal values rather than pull us down toward the lowest denominator of selfishness.
The very purpose of the celebration of Passover—the Seder dinner followed by days of matzah and lack of yeast-filled foods—is for each Jew to feel as if they themselves were freed from slavery in Egypt physically and spiritually. It is also to find our spiritual center and reconnect with our moral foundations rather than be filled with arrogance and false pride. Such an experience builds a sense of communal ownership of our quality of life and the individual responsibility that we each hold in that journey. In some ways that robust balance–between community needs and individual responsbility–is something that today’s society has seen disolve. In politics and in life.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
I wish you a joyous and loving Pesach or Easter.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
(For the record, I have personally chosen this year—as in each special session since I’ve been elected—not to collect any daily per diem during the Special Session as I feel we should be able to accomplish our workplan during the regularly scheduled time)
The healthy role of adversarial relationships in Olympia
There are three main biennial budgets in Olympia: Operating, Transportation and Capital. There is a fascinating group dynamic and political intrigue associated with each of these budgets that effectively represents the incredibly difficult challenges of governing.
I sit on the operating budget-writing Ways & Means Committee. Our efforts this year to adopt a responsible, balanced ‘supplemental’ budget (meaning mid-way through the two-year budget cycle) have been substantially impacted by the theatrics in the Senate that you have likely seen on the front page. We are trudging through a special legislative session because of our inability to close the deal on the supplemental operating budget. While I remain optimistic we’ll nail an agreement soon, it’s indicative of the partisan, interest group and institutional differences that exist in Olympia.
In the operating budget, the core philosophical battles continue to be waged daily.
While most of the public sees the disagreement this year as reflection of the political parties’ inability to function together, I have recently pondered the view–and reconsidered my thoughts– that when it comes to the public dollar, the operating budget is effectively at least an area where philosophically oriented spending battles are publicly waged. It’s not necessarily a bad thing to shine the public light on the disagreements behind this budget impasse because those battles show the public the core of the values of parties and interests.
There is value in considering that the Transportation and Capital budgets, written by committees of the same names, obviously represent their own subcultures in state government and have tended to go down a very different path over the past decades.
The transportation and capital budget subcultures overwhelmingly thrive on bipartisanship, cooperation, consensus and lop-sided affirmative votes followed by numerous ribbon cutting ceremonies in every corner of the state. It’s hard not to jump on the bandwagon of excitement when an important local community project is funded from an elementary school to college, prison to state park, tunnel to community center. Few of the 147 legislators would turn down an opportunity to secure a project in their district and I am as responsible, tagged and associated as anyone else.
I am, of course no exception in seeking priority funding for my district and take great pride in many of the projects I have helped secure funding for including the Ballard Boys & Girls Club, Pacific Science Center, Woodland Park Zoo, Taproot Theatre Company, Seattle schools, Alaskan Way Tunnel, Mercer Mess and many others.
Philosophically, the broader systematic and structural challenge that I see with the transportation and capital budgets is that the normally vibrant, healthy tension between parties and branches of government has lethargically slipped away in Olympia over the decades. As a political system we have become so accustomed to building consensus by placating broader philosophical objections with projects, money and political credit that the normally healthy ‘adversarial relationship’ between the parties and branches of government–a key value of our state constitution–has arguably atrophied.
For example, a vast majority of the transportation and capital budgets are naturally crafted in between sessions, during the interim when task forces, studies, commissions, staff and legislators of all interests work together to dole out public dollars as equally as possible–with natural political customization as times may warrant.
Often, without a robust, energetic, healthy adversarial relationship between entities, the negotiations, discussions and battles over spending decisions are waged internally and out of public view.
Thus, by the time the budgets reach the Legislature in January of each year, it’s effectively ‘baked’ who gets what, where and how. Not surprisingly, the money is spread carefully into every corner of the state, in every legislative district, with overarching focus on important local facilities with large political impacts. Making any meaningful change is extremely difficult, politically risky and highly unlikely anyway. If you are on one of the committees you can certainly nibble around the edges but a vast majority of spending is firmly set by the broader policy infrastructure.
None of this is to suggest that the committee chairs, governor and others aren’t effectively in charge, only that everyone has a seat at the table and clear policy and political interests quickly surface in order to reach consensus. Depending upon the size of the pie, projects make their way around the state. In general, of course, there is no shame in this model given the importance of a vibrant public infrastructure.
Not surprisingly, a handful of big policy issues refute this notion, such as how much support goes into transit. This issue touches the nerve of disagreement and falls outside of the system’s comfort zone which is one reason we see such disequilibrium in this area. And yet few issues are more important to air publicly since it goes to the essence of what type of transportation infrastructure we want to have in the 21st Century.
Still, philosophically, the parties and branches of government are in effect so accustomed to jointly spending the state’s wallet in transportation and capital categories that it’s rare that the budgets pass with less than 2/3 or 3/4 majorities.
And yet, interestingly, year in and year out the operating budget continues–regardless of majority or minority parties–to struggle to reach the proverbial 50 votes in the House, 25 votes in the Senate and 1 signature from a governor. The difference between the budgets is striking, and it’s not a function of personalities. I don’t know that either model is better but today I do find myself in a pensive mood about the implications of the two approaches.
I cannot shake my belief that there has been an unfortunate, uncomfortable corrosion of the vital constitutional checks and balances between our state’s executive and legislative institutions over the decades. On many levels the consensus-driven transportation and capital budget process–and the strong opposition to outlier arguments that challenge the status quo position of the agencies– probably do more good overall than harm. Most of the time.
But a healthy, publicly transparent, adversarial relationship between parties, chambers and branches of government is vital.
I can make a compelling case for both extremes as well as a hybrid model of both. But I worry that when the political parties are too closely aligned, the House and Senate too closely aligned, and the governor’s office too closely aligned with the institutional interests, that the public is the last one inside the room.
It’s easy to feel a bit of resentment and frustration at the Legislature’s inability to get it’s operating budget completed on time unlike the other two budgets. I share those sentiments. Yet from a broader level it’s important to also recognize that sometimes what you don’t see in the papers is just as important as what you do read. Or more so.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Struggling to see the nuance in Evergreen State College’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Today, few dynamics more astutely represent the soul of our state’s broader political discourse, debate and engagement than the complex duality of “Seattle nice”: On the one hand a profound deference to a full public process and expression of individual voice, and on the other an extreme political clumsiness about tackling serious controversy.
This duality in many ways defines us, excites us and sometimes paralyzes us. For example, fear of addressing structurally important ‘systems issues’ ensures we lethargically retreat into the most economically inefficient and inequitable tax structure in the nation. The tunnel ‘debate’ took 10 years and was settled only with a firm majority likely expressing exhaustion with the issue more than a design preference. And yet we appreciate elected representatives who know how to listen, and we respect a decision making process that is fair, open and transparent.
On the international front, underneath the narrow section of the political surface in our state today is a simmering philosophical battle about the Israeli and Palestinian debate. This debate is obviously not unique to Washington. For some distressing reason, however, here in Washington the track record is that it is often out of bounds of our normal definition of ‘Seattle nice.’
We are an educated, progressive, innovative and engaged community, but on this issue we have failed to demand of ourselves a level of dialogue befitting our state’s broader communal expectations–and our history of moderation and deep policy reflection.
The story of the Seattle LGBT Commission snubbing representatives from Israel is, unfortunately, merely the latest insult. The silence to this assault upon our city’s gracious welcome to the stranger–ironically a value from all Middle Eastern cultures–from Seattle’s progressive community is deafening.
The headline brings me to share a similar story. In the past few months I have privately engaged in multiple efforts to look at the unrelenting wave of anti-Israel sentiments that consistently expresses itself in many ways as anti-Jewish on the campus of The Evergreen State College.
My goal as a legislator who is actively Jewish is not to shame, tear down or intimidate but to lift up our dialogue. I seek, as the students of Hillel at Evergreen clearly do, to support the Evergreen and Olympia communities in a meaningful dialogue about an issue of profound moral importance to the world’s political stage. But to do so with quiet dignity, respect, honor, ethical values of civility, and religious integrity. To show those with whom I disagree on this issue the power of positive engagement. To live by example if at all possible.
Following extensive discussions in the past few years with concerned Jewish community leaders at the local, regional and international level, I felt a need to privately express my similarly-held reservations with the leadership of The Evergreen State College in Olympia about the wave of aggressive anti-Israeli sentiments that unquestionably dominates the campus community. A few months ago I requested a private meeting with President Les Purce and Provost Michael Zimmerman to better understand their views, values, hopes and expectations. Our conversation was thoughtful, respectful, engaged and positive on all fronts. Still, I found myself reflecting upon the sentiment that the college is on a journey of discovery on this issue where academic wonder for the sake of intellectual growth is not the master.
It is widely recognized from Seattle to Jerusalem that Evergreen is considered a strong home not only of anti-Israeli sentiment, but a platform for a community of political activists dedicated to the Palestinian cause of equality and statehood. That is not, of course, inherently a problem in and of itself. Given history of the terribly painful loss of Rachel Corrie, it is perhaps indeed understandable.
The larger structural problem, as I see it, is the pull of self righteousness from administrators, faculty, trustees and students as to the argument that Evergreen is too intellectually and academically nuanced for outsiders to understand.
My modest question of why it seems literally no representatives from Israel–academic, government, arts, music, cultural, business, labor or others–have in 10 years been invited to visit campus and courageously discuss (in a safe, open, academic environment) the difficult issues together was answered with a respectful but methodical response that the administration has no role in fostering academic openness relative to the power, authority and expectations of faculty.
If the marketplace of ideas is managed by the faculty, it is telling that there are untold examples of guests proactively invited to campus from decidedly anti-Israel positions, organizations, groups and causes. I was told that the nuance of academic freedom at Evergreen means there is no administrative role about the fact that not one Evergreen faculty member felt an inclination to invite even one ‘pro Israel’ educator, musician, artist, politician, peace activist, judge, student leader, architect, scientist or professor to engage in an academically-driven discussion about the complex Israeli-Palestinian issues in more than a decade.
In this institution of higher education, that prides itself on its visionary pedagogical approach to higher education, it seems no academically-driven pedagogical patterns have emerged in the past 10 years that would include an invitation to representatives from Israel to engage in a multi-sided or socratic conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. As you might imagine, I struggle to appreciate the nuance in that approach.
How is it even possible that despite the campus’ firm positioning on the internationally charged issue, it seems literally no one from Israel or from what might be even casually be called a ‘pro Israel’ position has been even so much as invited to campus to attempt to help elevate the profoundly complex dialogue? The reason, according to administrators, is that Evergreen faculty have not expressed a desire to do so. The college administration has taken steps, in their view, to promote diversity of expression, academic freedom, rigorous intellectualism. A Jewish Studies instructor was hired on a 6-month basis to co-teach one course.
While I admire the administration’s personal candor and clear conviction–and their heartfelt desire not to be defined on the world stage as among the most virulent anti-Israeli campuses–on both a substantive and policy level I am unable to translate their protestations of progress into a language I can understand.
Naturally, one could argue that it is inappropriate for a legislator to directly question the critical-thinking pedagogy and methods of student learning employed by our colleges and universities. I would argue that, in fact, it does matter that we ensure a rich, diverse culture of learning that is safe for the minority viewpoint. Whether a far right conservative Republican or a pro-Israeli Jewish student, it’s difficult to sense that on this campus true academic freedom genuinely, meaningfully and safely includes students who speak alone.
As we well know, Evergreen is highly regarded as one of the most innovative educational experiences in the nation. There is dignity in that recognition and I honor that acknowledgment as a citizen, taxpayer and legislator. Nonetheless, my instinct tells me that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tyranny of the majority reins uncontested.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
The frenzied, addicted rush to the status quo
We learn in high school civics that representative democracy as intricately and chaotically designed by the founders of our nation is organized to resist radical change. Despite the protestations of the age of Enlightenment leader Thomas Jefferson that a good revolution should take place every twenty years or so, we rarely see enthusiastic embrace of systems change. Barack Obama is reminded of this in Washington, D.C., and our state’s addiction to decentralization of power makes a reminder unnecessary.
Still, this Legislative Session I relearned, as if I somehow forgot from last year, the profound power of the institutional infrastructure of the status quo.
My idealism remains intact despite an unabashed acknowledgement that systems change is an unwelcome guest in the halls of representative democracy. The inside Olympia game is replete with reasons why we can’t change our course of direction on tax policy.
We look closely at spending in every budget. We ignore the entire other side of the ledger not only because of legal restrictions but because it brings comfort to our friends of all political stripes.
Given I-1053, we have today a model by which tax exemptions, credits and preferential rates are almost literally impossible to modify in any way. The 567 tax exemptions we’ve created are almost inherently locked in perpetuity given that a mere 17 state senators can block any change or modification of any sort. It requires a simple majority to create a tax exemption but a supermajority to reduce, modify or adjust an exemption under some people’s interpretation of I-1053.
House Bill 2762 was a sincere attempt, if I might, to change the basic construct of our tax structure away from the rigid permanence of today. The proposal was to require all tax exemptions without an expiration date to expire after 10 years–unless reauthorized by the Legislature. The bill, which I proposed to put on the November ballot, passed out of the House Ways & Means Committee but failed to move beyond that stage due in large part to concerns among some that it would elicit $10 million from business interests to defeat the measure.
My goal was not to increase short term revenues as evidenced by the fact that the bill didn’t take effect until 2017 and would only begin to expire exemptions every two years over the course of a 10 year range. It certainly wasn’t radical, but it was a structural shift to the core idea that exemptions would be forced to answer to taxpayers (and Legislators) whether they returned an investment.
My goal was radical transparency and accountability. I assume a good 80% of exemptions would be reauthorized almost immediately upon even the threat of expiration. And, by the way, no personal exemptions were included in the bill such as sales tax on food, prescription drugs, etc. Those tax exemptions not constitutionally or contractually obligated would be required to show the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee and the Citizen’s Independent Commission that they worked.
Today, we require no such evidence to continue the benefit although we go through the motions. The reports from the two main committees sit idly on the shelf collecting dust. There is little value in introducing a bill to repeal a tax exemption even if the committee suggest it. The supermajority hurdle is simply unachievable regardless of the merits of the case.
My friends in the business community lashed out against the bill. Amendments were introduced to exempt most of the industries from the exemption legislation–a delicious irony that makes the point that the interests were hesitant about their desire to prove their efficacy for taxpayers.
I understand, of course, that the interests (non profits, for profits, etc.) were uninterested in more work to prove that their tax exemptions, credits and preferential rates are justified. It’s so much easier to pass a bill once and then walk a way from the issue without further follow up, data collection, proof, evidence or political arguments to reauthorize the policy. I get it.
And yet if a tax exemption is working–and many do–shouldn’t the Legislature be forced to review the policy once every 10 years and make a judgement to reauthorize the policy rather than literally put the issue to bed?
The Seattle Times editorialized in favor of this policy a few times even though their own tax exemption was on the list. It’s a testament to their willingness in this case to be philosophically consistent on the issue of tax exemptions. Publicola has followed the issue extensively.
I would have gladly sponsored legislation to reauthorize many of the tax exemptions that I believe work well–from the custom software tax to certain agriculture credits–but I believe we make a huge mistake as a state by failing to look critically, analytically and objectively at the basic question of whether they work or not.
Many argued that because most tax exemptions work well it would be wrong to expire them periodically and require reauthorization. I couldn’t disagree more. If they are working well, I suspect they will not struggle to be reauthorized by a Legislature hungry for political victories.
I believe requiring transparency, accountability, intellectual and fiscal accountability as to whether a tax exemption works is an idea that should unite conservatives and progressive alike. I’m sorry that it failed to generate the momentum required to elevate the dialogue necessary to achieve meaningful change. I spent many hours with my GOP colleagues asking them to look deeper at the idea and to stand with me on this. Too many could only see it as a giant tax increase regardless of the reality on the ground. I am grateful to my friend Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Fall Creek, who shared my vision for radical openness about tax exemptions. While he didn’t support the last-minute idea of making this a referendum–instead calling for the Legislature to adopt a 2/3 vote on the measure–he did support the notion that we must see both sides of the ledger equally.
Today in our state, when it comes to tax exemptions, the status quo requires blind obedience. Permanently. Unless and until the people say otherwise.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service
Reuven.
Psst, hey friend, want to run for office? Yes, you.
Reblogged from Official Reuven Carlyle Blog:
Sen. Magnuson and 15-year-old page Reuven Carlyle in 1980
The defining political event of my life was the opportunity to serve as Sen. Warren G. Magnuson’s last congressional page. What I learned from Magnuson was the core human value of mentorship that flowed through his soul. Carrying the distinguished badge as one of Magnuson’s “bumblebees” is something that I treasure and that changed the very course of my life.
Retooling the high tech R&D tax credit: Investing in higher ed together
As an active entrepreneur in the wireless, software and clean energy sectors–in a career touching seven early stage companies funded primarily by start up private equity–I am fiercely proud of our state’s innovation economy. Now that I serve as a part-time citizen legislator as well, I unapologetically advocate for helping our state’s software, biotechnology, biomedical, wireless, hardware, web and content communities thrive. These industries are a major fuel of our state’s economic engine within the global economy.
After months of behind the scenes negotiations with key legislators, industry representatives, students and university leaders, this week the House Ways & Means Committee will consider my legislation SHB 2532 to reauthorize and reform the high tech R&D tax credit, a popular benefit for companies engaged in advanced computing, advanced materials, biotechnology, electronic device technology, and environmental technology.
The Seattle Times editorial board embraced the policy proposal here. Students at the University of Washington and elsewhere have been passionate advocates for the reform.
Since the program was created in 1994 thousands of companies have realized hundreds of millions in value from this tax credit. In previous years, the tax credit was easily justified in order to encourage research and development that is so easily relocated around the globe.
Today, however, as the tax credit is slated to expire in 2015, and our state struggles through the Great Recession, our world has dramatically changed and it’s time to rethink the role, value and design of the high tech R&D tax credit. But this is not merely about tax policy, it is about the value of investing in higher education together. That is my real goal in introducing SHB 2532.
My core objective is to maintain the program–rather than see it expire completely for all companies on January 1, 2015–for early stage, small and medium sized technology companies and ask larger companies to contribute a large portion of the value of the tax credit. The investment of those dollars goes directly to an incremental investment in the University of Washington, Washington State University, Western Washington University and our other top-tier STEM programs.
Proponents of the bill are trying to help our state take a radical step forward in our investment in STEM education to produce not only more mechanical, software and electrical engineers, but more scientists, researchers, math teachers and so much more.
In 2010, 552 high technology companies received $44 million in business and occupation (B&O) credits against their research and development investments. The estimated income levels of the companies taking the tax benefit: 146 had less than $500,000 per year in revenues; 45 had between $500K and $1M in revenue; 128 were between $1M and $5M; 71 were between $5M-$10M; 68 were between $10M-$25M; 30 were between $25M-$50M; 25 were between $50M-$100M; 39 had revenues over $100 million.
The top 16 companies by amount taken for the tax credit in 2010:
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE: $2 million
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: $2 million
CH2M HILL PLATEAU REMEDIATION COMPANY: $2 million
BUNGIE, LLC: $711,000
SCHWEITZER ENGINEERING LABRATORIES: $504,000
SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC.: $499,000
PHILIPS ULTASOUND, INC.: $454,000
SNBL, USA, LTD.: $443,000
REAL NETWORKS, INC.: $401,000
COVANCE GENOMICS LABORATORIES, LLC: $380,000
SONOSITE, INC.: $348,000
INSITU, INC.: $339,000
RESEARCH IN MOTION, INC.: $305,000
GOOGLE, INC: $280,000
PHYSIO CONTROL MANUFACTURING INC.: $266,000
YAHOO, INC.: $260,000
Under the bill, companies with revenues up to $25 million per year would see no change in the value, mechanics or level of the tax credit. Companies between $25 million and $50 million would retain 30% of the current value of the tax credit; companies between $50 million and $100 million would retain the equivalent of 20% of the current value of the credit; companies with revenues over $100 million would retain 10% of the current value. Thus, for example, Microsoft would be eligible for a total value of $200,000 instead of $2 million based upon their R&D for the year.
The tax credit would be reauthorized for an additional 10 years under the bill and the complex reporting requirements would be simplified.
Another key provision ensures that the dollars secured by resizing the tax credit will be controlled by the newly established Opportunity Scholarship Board, a private sector, non profit with members recently appointed by the Governor that is currently tasked with building a public and private partnership to raise funds for higher education scholarships.
There is strong ‘non supplant’ language to ensure that the Legislature continues to invest in these STEM programs within higher education in the regular budget AND that these dollars are used by the universities for incremental STEM degree production rather than diluted into administrative or other non academic purposes.
The estimated $26 million per biennium that could be raised from this reform could be a major, bold step forward for our state’s universities and colleges. It is in no way intended to off-set the Legislature’s horrific systematic disinvestment in higher education. But it is a step forward and it is a measured approach by asking the private sector to join in funding our higher education system in a more direct way.
While some companies and organizations effected by this proposal have, after sincere analysis and study, elected to oppose this legislation, others–most notably Microsoft–have engaged in an extremely thoughtful and rigorous public policy dialogue and have chosen to formally endorse the bill.
One of the ‘teachable moments’ for me in this negotiation process has been the recognition of how much work it is–and how uncomfortable it can be–to question our own comfortable assumptions. Some of my friends in the high tech community are surprised or worse by my sponsorship of this bill.
I ask those friends to look deeper.
From a systems perspective of the need for bold change in our state, just as we need teachers to question the status quo of education because they know the inside deal, and we need nurses and physicians to question the status quo of health care, we also need high tech executives to lead on big issues impacting the high tech community.
Ultimately, that is the beauty, value and integrity that our founder’s envisioned with a part-time citizen legislature.
I am grateful for the depth of assessment and policy debate on both sides, and I appreciate those organizations that have courageously decided to stand together to invest precious dollars into STEM education in our state.
We are so much more than what we’ve become.
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
DISCLOSURE: 1) I have received campaign contributions from a number of the companies and organizations listed in this post. 2) I have previously held economic interests in companies that have utilized the high tech R&D tax credit. 3) I may have financial interests in some of the companies listed or impacted by the R&D through ownership of equities or mutual funds.
New video update about 2012 legislative session
Here’s a new video update:
In the coming days I’ll be sending out e-newsletters and other information about the activities of the 2012 legislative session.
It’s an honor to represent you in Olympia. If you have comments, concerns, thoughts, or specific issues that inspire you please reach out. I can be reached most effectively via email at reuven.carlyle@leg.wa.gov
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
