This Washington
Rep. Chris Reykdal Takes on Newspaper Industry Tax Break
The Olympian recently published
a story about which state legislators will (and won't) voluntarily take a three percent pay cut—tacking to the three percent pay cut the legislature mandated for state employees this year during the budget crisis.
Titled "The Op-Ed the Olympian Won't Print," freshman lefty state Rep. Chris Reykdal (D-22, Tumwater), challenged the newspaper to give up its share of the $32 million "annual" industry-wide tax break on newspapers. (Hold on, though: The B&O tax break on newspapers is more like $1.3 million a year, but there is a sales tax exemption on news box sales that was worth more than $30 million every two years. That tax break goes to consumers, not the industry itself.)
Reykdal, who tells PubliCola that Olympian editorial page editor Mike Oakland turned down the piece because it didn't meet the papers "standards," opted to take the voluntary pay cut, though he argues it's largely symbolic. And then he lays in to the Olympian .
Reykdal is pretty eloquent about all this stuff, though his conclusion doesn't make much sense. After making the case that the newspaper industry should get rid of its tax break, he goes on to suggest that they could use the money to pay reporters more so newspapers can do investigative stories that detail the inequities of the budget. I like the sentiment, but the logic is lost on me. If the papers lose a tax break, they won't have more money to pay reporters. They'll have less.
I have a call and email in to Oakland, the Olympian's editorial page editor.
Titled "The Op-Ed the Olympian Won't Print," freshman lefty state Rep. Chris Reykdal (D-22, Tumwater), challenged the newspaper to give up its share of the $32 million "annual" industry-wide tax break on newspapers. (Hold on, though: The B&O tax break on newspapers is more like $1.3 million a year, but there is a sales tax exemption on news box sales that was worth more than $30 million every two years. That tax break goes to consumers, not the industry itself.)
Reykdal, who tells PubliCola that Olympian editorial page editor Mike Oakland turned down the piece because it didn't meet the papers "standards," opted to take the voluntary pay cut, though he argues it's largely symbolic. And then he lays in to the Olympian .
Allow me to mention another budgeting idea: As one of several for-profit newspapers reaping the benefits of a $32 million industry-wide tax exemption annually, perhaps the newspaper industry could write a check to the State General Fund equal to 3 percent of their tax break, which could be used to restore a fraction of those Basic Health or classroom cuts in Washington.
If we are to truly believe you value fiscal austerity in these tough times, then why not also question on a weekly basis a tax exemption given to the McClatchy group (parent of the Daily Olympian, ticker symbol MNI), an out-of-state corporation with a total enterprise value of $1.7 billion that has seen its share price grow more than 330 percent over the past two years?
A salary cut is symbolically important to be sure, but not a viable answer to our budget woes. The state tax exemption your corporation and other newspapers in Washington enjoy is worth $32 million annually. That is 170 times more than the money saved by a 3 percent cut in all legislators’ salaries (estimated at $190,000 or 0.00122 percent of the Near General Fund budget).
Reykdal is pretty eloquent about all this stuff, though his conclusion doesn't make much sense. After making the case that the newspaper industry should get rid of its tax break, he goes on to suggest that they could use the money to pay reporters more so newspapers can do investigative stories that detail the inequities of the budget. I like the sentiment, but the logic is lost on me. If the papers lose a tax break, they won't have more money to pay reporters. They'll have less.
I have a call and email in to Oakland, the Olympian's editorial page editor.
