1. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) was at a retirement home in Seattle on Sunday to protest U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget proposal, which: A) scales back Medicare for seniors by giving seniors a fixed $8,000 voucher rather than guaranteed coverage (Cantwell was joined by American Association of Retired Persons Washington) and B) caps Medicaid for poor people .

Cantwell broke it down to the local level: Five hundred thousand soon-to-be seniors in Washington state would have to pay twice as much for health care (she cites the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for that stat) and more than 60,000 seniors  would to pay $38 million extra on medication.

In King County, Sen. Cantwell warns, nearly 20,000 seniors would face $9.5 million in higher prescription costs next year.

Both Cantwell and U.S. Sen. Murray (D-WA) and 48 other senators signed a letter to President Obama last week opposing the GOP house plan.

The letter says, in part:

Giving  seniors a voucher of approximately $8,000 ... is a reckless and irresponsible way to address the health care needs of older Americans.  And it is an unacceptable means by which to finance tax cuts for those who are earning ten times or more than the retirement income of the average Medicare recipient. [pullquote]Giving  seniors a voucher of approximately $8,000 ... is a reckless and irresponsible way to address the health care needs of older Americans.  And it is an unacceptable means by which to finance tax cuts for those who are earning ten times or more than the retirement income of the average Medicare recipient.[/pullquote]

Seniors, who have paid into the system their entire working lives, deserve affordable, secure health coverage upon retirement. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in the first year of the voucher program, out-of-pocket expenses for seniors would double under the Republican plan to more than $12,500 annually.  For seniors on a fixed income, a doubling of out-of-pocket expenses is simply unaffordable, particularly when the average Social Security benefit is only $14,000 per year.

The Republican budget proposal would not keep pace with the rate of inflation for health care, meaning seniors would pay ever higher out-of-pocket costs.

2. As Republicans, conservative Democrats, and the governor continue to say changing the state workers' comp program to allow lump sum settlements (rather than just ongoing payments) must be part of the budget deal, the spotlight has fallen on state house speaker Rep. Frank Chopp (D-43, Wallingford).

As centrist Rep. Deb Eddy (D-48, Kirkland), who's pushing a lump sum settlement plan, told us: “Of the group commonly referred to as the ‘five corners,’ [both caucuses in both chambers and the governor's office] only the House D leadership is completely dug in to a position in which voluntary settlements are seen as sort of Armageddon."

(Democratic leadership in the senate isn't blocking the idea because they're outnumbered by a coalition of centrists from their own caucus and Republicans.)

Public Radio reporter Austin Jenkins was able to ask Chopp about the issue (specifically, the Governor's compromise proposal, which only focuses on soon-to-retired workers). And indeed, Chopp is opposed.

Jenkins reports:

I ran into Speaker of the House Frank Chopp Thursday and asked him about Governor Chris Gregoire's latest workers' compensation compromise proposal. [This issue - not the two-year budget - is what's got the legislature truly bollixed.] His response was to ask me: if I was a 55-year old permanently injured worker, would I take a lump sum settlement worth 30-cents-on-the-dollar?

Chopp was referring to the governor's proposal to offer a claim settlement option to older, permanently injured workers. His math assumes a settlement amount that's a fraction of what the injured worker could get in annuity payments over his or her lifetime.

3. Another budget deal breaker which casts the state senate against the state house is the idea of putting a debt limit on the capital budget (seven percent, down from nine.)  The senate, citing the approximately $2 billion in current debt, has passed legislation to limit what percentage capital debt payments can take up as part of the general fund.

Their argument is catchy: "What's the good of building schools when you can't pay teachers to work there?"

But the house, which opposes the idea, has an equally catchy rejoinder: "What's the good of paying teachers if they've got nowhere to teach?"

The American Institute of Architects, which sides with the house (for obvious reasons), issued a report that tries to settle the viscous cycle of soundbites. While both sides appeal to jobs, jobs, jobs, the AIA report professes to show which budget, the general fund or the capital budget, actually creates more jobs. The report found:

One billion dollars spent on capital budget projects creates 13,820 total jobs and $732.6 million in labor income.  That is 920 more jobs and $54.9 million more in labor income compared to the same level of spending in the operating budget.

Sen. Derek Kilmer (D-26, Gig Harbor ), who's sponsoring the debt limit legislation, refused to exacerbate the jobs vs. jobs debate, saying, "I'm reticent to get into the jobs debate. One kind of job is not more valuable than the other, they're all important—teachers, health care workers, and construction."

However, Kilmer adds that debt payments, currently $2 billion, "are crowding out" money in the general fund for education and other core services. "The $800 million," he says, referring to the interest on $1 billion in capital bonds, "isn't going to any jobs, unless you count Wall Street brokers."