This Washington
Business and Labor Form Unprecedented Alliance on Jobs Bill
"This is pretty unique," Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, says. "I've been lobbying for 26 years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been jointly lobbying with business."
The Washington State Labor Council (along with the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council) has teamed up with the Associated General Contractors of Washington (AGCW) to make the rounds in Olympia this week and stump for a $2 billion jobs package.[pullquote]"I've been lobbying for 26 years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been jointly lobbying with business."—Jeff Johnson, WSLC[/pullquote]
"If you want to fix the economy, fix construction," Johnson's new cohort Rick Slunaker, the head lobbyist for the AGCW, says—citing state data showing that every construction job leads to the creation of one job in another industry. He also points out that unemployment in the construction industry is "staggering" right now—between 20 and 60 percent, depending on the trade and the location. The AGCW represents roughly 650 firms.
Their idea is to issue bonds backed by some of the revenues that are currently coming into the capital budget (not the general fund) that would ordinarily be slated for ongoing capital projects like stormwater mitigation. Instead, they propose leveraging those dollars for bigger projects—an array of construction jobs from community colleges to sewers to office buildings—to get a bigger bang for the buck.
A $2 billion investment, Slunaker says, would create 30,000 jobs. He also says the jobs wouldn't just be "show jobs for the sake of putting people to work like FDR['s New Deal]. ... These are projects that we're supposed to be doing anyway, that are on to-do lists already."[pullquote]"If you want to fix the economy, fix construction."—Rick Slunaker, Associated General Contractors of Washington. [/pullquote]
Johnson says the plan would also increase state revenue collections—bringing in at least $30 to $40 million in additional revenue this biennium and $70 to $80 million in the next biennium. Johnson calls construction jobs "a great gift" because the construction sector has a disproportionate impact on revenue—making up just 4 percent of the state's workforce while producing between eight and 10 percent of state revenues because of all the sales taxes generated from materials for projects.
"When you've got business and labor coming to you with a package that adds jobs and revenue, why would anyone say no?" Johnson asks rhetorically. He says the reaction from lawmakers has been "pretty decent." Johnson and Slunaker met with senate Republican leader Mike Hewitt (R-16 ) yesterday and Democratic senate Democratic leadership today, and have a meeting with Gov. Chris Gregoire scheduled for Friday. Gregoire's office would not comment on the proposal, but spokeswoman Karina Shagren confirmed that Gregoire is meeting with Johnson and Slunaker on Friday and that "the governor certainly looks forward to meeting with them, and hearing their ideas around job creation, [which is] certainly a priority of the governor's."
I've got a call in to Sen. Hewitt. I've also got calls out to the house and senate capital budget leaders, Sen. Derek Kilmer (D-26) and Rep. Hans Dunshee (D-44), who Johnson and Slunaker say are heading up the legislation.
The labor/business coalition reports hearing three concerns from legislators. 1) Where's the money going to come from? 2) Will there be an impact on the debt ceiling? And 3) If they have to take a bond proposal to the public for a vote, will it compete with the planned transportation revenue package—or a general revenue package? Democrats have raised the last point, while both Democrats and Republicans are raising questions about the debt limit, currently set at about 8 percent of general-fund revenues, with current spending on debt at about $2 billion this biennium, or 6.1 percent of the general fund.
The first question is the one that's causing the most resistance, though. Democratic budget leader Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48) says he hasn't seen the details yet, but says he's "very concerned." He explains: "Where's the money going to come from? You're going to have to stop doing something."
He concludes skeptically: "I'm not very excited about the possibility that we'll have to [use] the general fund."
Meanwhile, the answer to the ballot question is simple: Don't send it to the people. "If it's revenue bonds, we can do it in the legislature right now," Johnson says, pitching the idea of using capital budget money now as financing rather than a tax. Last year, state Rep. Dunshee unsuccessfully tried to fund bonds to improve energy efficiency at school buildings with R-52, a similar jobs measure.
As for the debt limit issue, Slunaker says legislators wouldn't have to raise the debt limit because they'd be relying on funds that already exist. "You can spend those dollars now or spend them later. We want to spend them now. This is a springboard investment," he says. "Our catch phrase is 'investing in tomorrow, going to work today'."
The Washington State Labor Council (along with the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council) has teamed up with the Associated General Contractors of Washington (AGCW) to make the rounds in Olympia this week and stump for a $2 billion jobs package.[pullquote]"I've been lobbying for 26 years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been jointly lobbying with business."—Jeff Johnson, WSLC[/pullquote]
"If you want to fix the economy, fix construction," Johnson's new cohort Rick Slunaker, the head lobbyist for the AGCW, says—citing state data showing that every construction job leads to the creation of one job in another industry. He also points out that unemployment in the construction industry is "staggering" right now—between 20 and 60 percent, depending on the trade and the location. The AGCW represents roughly 650 firms.
Their idea is to issue bonds backed by some of the revenues that are currently coming into the capital budget (not the general fund) that would ordinarily be slated for ongoing capital projects like stormwater mitigation. Instead, they propose leveraging those dollars for bigger projects—an array of construction jobs from community colleges to sewers to office buildings—to get a bigger bang for the buck.
A $2 billion investment, Slunaker says, would create 30,000 jobs. He also says the jobs wouldn't just be "show jobs for the sake of putting people to work like FDR['s New Deal]. ... These are projects that we're supposed to be doing anyway, that are on to-do lists already."[pullquote]"If you want to fix the economy, fix construction."—Rick Slunaker, Associated General Contractors of Washington. [/pullquote]
Johnson says the plan would also increase state revenue collections—bringing in at least $30 to $40 million in additional revenue this biennium and $70 to $80 million in the next biennium. Johnson calls construction jobs "a great gift" because the construction sector has a disproportionate impact on revenue—making up just 4 percent of the state's workforce while producing between eight and 10 percent of state revenues because of all the sales taxes generated from materials for projects.
"When you've got business and labor coming to you with a package that adds jobs and revenue, why would anyone say no?" Johnson asks rhetorically. He says the reaction from lawmakers has been "pretty decent." Johnson and Slunaker met with senate Republican leader Mike Hewitt (R-16 ) yesterday and Democratic senate Democratic leadership today, and have a meeting with Gov. Chris Gregoire scheduled for Friday. Gregoire's office would not comment on the proposal, but spokeswoman Karina Shagren confirmed that Gregoire is meeting with Johnson and Slunaker on Friday and that "the governor certainly looks forward to meeting with them, and hearing their ideas around job creation, [which is] certainly a priority of the governor's."
I've got a call in to Sen. Hewitt. I've also got calls out to the house and senate capital budget leaders, Sen. Derek Kilmer (D-26) and Rep. Hans Dunshee (D-44), who Johnson and Slunaker say are heading up the legislation.
The labor/business coalition reports hearing three concerns from legislators. 1) Where's the money going to come from? 2) Will there be an impact on the debt ceiling? And 3) If they have to take a bond proposal to the public for a vote, will it compete with the planned transportation revenue package—or a general revenue package? Democrats have raised the last point, while both Democrats and Republicans are raising questions about the debt limit, currently set at about 8 percent of general-fund revenues, with current spending on debt at about $2 billion this biennium, or 6.1 percent of the general fund.
The first question is the one that's causing the most resistance, though. Democratic budget leader Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48) says he hasn't seen the details yet, but says he's "very concerned." He explains: "Where's the money going to come from? You're going to have to stop doing something."
He concludes skeptically: "I'm not very excited about the possibility that we'll have to [use] the general fund."
Meanwhile, the answer to the ballot question is simple: Don't send it to the people. "If it's revenue bonds, we can do it in the legislature right now," Johnson says, pitching the idea of using capital budget money now as financing rather than a tax. Last year, state Rep. Dunshee unsuccessfully tried to fund bonds to improve energy efficiency at school buildings with R-52, a similar jobs measure.
As for the debt limit issue, Slunaker says legislators wouldn't have to raise the debt limit because they'd be relying on funds that already exist. "You can spend those dollars now or spend them later. We want to spend them now. This is a springboard investment," he says. "Our catch phrase is 'investing in tomorrow, going to work today'."
