spring 2020 freedom matters pages

Spring/Summer 2020

Volume 5, No. 1

Trading

Liberty Safety

for

Americans have seen many of their civil rights compromised during the current health crisis.

Will they be restored when it's over? Page 6

A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

P

erhaps nothing in the lifetime of any living American has affected this country so profoundly — and with such terrifying swiftness — as the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. The only events to compare it to are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. The good news is, things appear to be slowly but surely getting back to normal in this country. It may be a while yet before huge crowds feel confident enough to breathe on one another in sports stadiums again, but at least people seem to be returning to work — assuming they still have a job to go back to.

The truly terrifying aspect of the experience was what it taught us about the fragile nature of liberty. As always, the first instinct of those in power — from both political parties, really — was to launch an unprecedented assault on our rights and freedoms. And it was all done in our best interests — or so we were assured.

Rather than simply leaving it to free Americans to decide for themselves what risks to take and which activities to voluntarily avoid, the reflex reaction from the heavy hand of government was to decide whose livelihood met the state-established definition of essential and whose could simply be jettisoned for the "common good."

None of which is to suggest the pandemic wasn't a serious matter or that the precautions taken didn't save lives. But at what cost?

Far more lives have been lost in every generation defending the very freedoms we've so eagerly surrendered at the first sign of danger. Will we make those sacrifices meaningless by ceding to bureaucrats and special interests the responsibility for protecting ourselves and our loved ones? Or will we assume the personal responsibility on which this nation was founded?

Here in Washington, Gov. Jay Inslee classified thousands of small businesses as "non-essential" while carving out an exemption for "unions and labor advocacy groups" that allowed his political allies to remain open and continue collecting dues from public employees while many in the private sector — the ones actually producing the wealth governments exist to redistribute — were consigned to failure.

Unfortunately for the governor, the same classification allowed the Freedom Foundation to keep its doors open, too. And we did. I seriously doubt whether Inslee and union friends really consider us essential. But we do, and so do unflagging supporters like you.

We take our responsibilities seriously in each of the five states where we have offices, in addition to the rest of the country. We never took a day off during the past few hellish months because we couldn't afford to. Safeguarding liberty from those who never need an excuse to seize it is too important.

TOM McCABE, CEO

Essential?

Now more than ever.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee on March 22 responded to the Coronavirus pandemic by imposing a temporary stay-at-home order on Washington residents and thousands of businesses deemed “nonessential” by the governor’s advisors. In April, it was extended to May 4.

Among those granted an exemption from the edict, however, were SEIU, WFSE, the Washington Education Association and every other union claiming to represent the state’s myriad government employees.

While countless Washingtonians lost their livelihoods with the stroke of an Olympia bureaucrat’s pen, the state’s wealthiest and most powerful special interests were allowed to continue confiscating dues as though nothing had happened.

But it turns out the same loophole created for “unions and labor advocates” can also be applied to the Freedom Foundation — without a doubt the state of Washington’s premier advocate for worker freedom.

We’re still here. Whether from home or the office, the Freedom Foundation is on the job every day performing its “essential” mission. And, thanks to supporters like you, we’ll still be making life miserable for Gov. Inslee and his union cronies long after history concludes they’re the ones who are truly nonessential.

Volume 5, No. 1

26. The Next Big Thing

As if the threat to our health wasn't enough, greedy politicians also see the Coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to steal our freedoms.

If public-sector unions think Janus rocked their world, wait'll they see what's coming in Belgau v. Inslee.

10. Attacking from the top down

30. Shotgun Wedding

President Trump takes on unions in his signature forceful style.

So-called 'union security clauses' may not do much to benefit unorganized workers or dues-paying members, but union bigwigs just love them.

14. Who's to Say? Most people believe the public has an interest in funding education. But the relevant questions are: What exactly is 'public interest'; and, What kinds of education best serve it?

18. Wages of Syn Robin Hood had nothing on another fictional English income redistributor.

22. "We'll Control It This Time" Youngsters only think they like socialism because they've been lied to about its record of failure.

f

34. Playing God with the Constitution

Contents

6. Exploiting Disaster

America's founding document makes it clear our rights come from our creator. But modern liberals think they can manufacture new ones whenever a new voting bloc demands one..

38. Action Update

A few of the Freedom Foundation's notable accomplishments during the past six months.

Freedom Matters is a publication of the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit think and action tank based in Olympia, Wash., dedicated to promoting free markets and limited, accountable government. Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any ballot measures or the election of any elected official or candidate. Publisher: Tom McCabe; Editor: Jeff Rhodes. Phone: (360) 956-3482.

PAGE 6

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Exploiting Disaster The Art of

Citing the need to

By ASHLEY VARNER protect the public, VP for COMMUNICATIONS the nation's leftist governors are taking advantage of the current pandemic to enact schemes that have nothing to do with the disease and everything to do with consolidating their political power.

I

n the Age of Coronavirus, it’s even more important than ever to watch what our politicians and unelected “authorities” actually do than listen to what they say because the former is a far better barometer of their true motivations regarding their power versus our liberty.

In response to a legitimate health emergency, governors and mayors across the country eagerly assumed

powers previously unrecognized to shut down private businesses, stop families from visiting each other and prevent religious services from taking place — even when innovative solutions exist to allow many such activities to continue.

True to the totalitarian credo of never letting a good crisis go to waste, matters quickly spiraled out of control.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen FREEDOM FREEDOM MATTERS MATTERSn nPAGE PAGE 7 7

Whitmer — who actually believes she’s positioning herself to be named Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate — in fact cemented her status as the poster child for this sort of administrative overreach.

Whitmer first signed an executive order preventing businesses from selling fruit and vegetable seeds, and even banned “gatherings of any size.”

But her true colors came through loud and clear when she issued a no-bid contract for Coronavirus contact tracing to Great Lakes Community Engagement, which is operated by a well-known Democratic consultant Michael Kolehouse — who has previously written that President Trump should "get Coronavirus ASAP," and that someone should "do the country a favor and cough on that man."

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, meanwhile, shut down the state-owned (and monopolized) liquor stores.

Beverly, Mass., a suburb of Boston, set up one-way sidewalks and threatened to issue $100 citations to anyone who walked in the wrong direction.

Kentucky state troopers took down the license plate numbers of churchgoers on Easter Sunday.

As government continues to shut down the private sector, Americans are losing their jobs and filing for unemployment by the millions, parents are thrust into unexpected homeschool situations and arguably the most productive economic period in American history was eradicated in a matter of weeks.

And yet Biden has embraced failed Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ sweeping plan to bail out college graduates who perhaps were not as financially savvy as they should have been or pursued degrees in fields that don’t pay the bills by tearing up their student loans.

You heard right: The entire fabric of American life has been turned upside down and liberties are being trampled left and right (and from the left and the right), but presidential hopefuls are seriously entertaining the notion that what this nation needs right now is for people who were financially responsible either during or after college — or did not even go to college — to pay off student loan debts they didn’t incur.

Such a move isn’t about charity.

And it’s not simply about courting the “Bernie Bros.”

PAGE 8

n FREEDOM MATTERS

It’s about government manipulation and control over more of our personal lives.

President Ronald Reagan famously said, “if you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.” Government can and does manipulate human behavior by financially encouraging or discouraging lifestyle choices.

What does forcing taxpayers to pay off millions of others’ student loan debts discourage? Responsibility. It empowers youngsters with little experience making major financial decisions in the first place to ignore practical considerations such as whether they’ll ever have the wherewithal to pay the loans back.

Meanwhile, what does it encourage?

Entitlement.

Whatever difficulties they may have mastering the nuances of a major that might actually result in a job that produces a real paycheck, these socialist wannabes almost instinctively grasp that government handouts beget more government handouts.

If every student has a birthright to free tuition, it goes without saying they also have a right to free room and board, transportation and, of course, healthcare.

Unfortunately, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as a government handout without attached strings of some sort. When the government hands you a pile of someone else’s money, it may enhance your rights and improve your financial outlook, but it does so at the cost of infringing on the rights of those who are suddenly forced to fund your lifestyle or provide your services.

It means another person or family has to make do with less of their hardearned paycheck so the government can encourage or discourage someone else’s behavior and life choices.

And when people have to pay more in taxes to fund a government pet project, whatever it may be, it means the government has stolen more of someone’s personal, financial independence.

Every dollar we pay to the government is one more we can’t spend ourselves.

It is beyond unseemly that in the Age of Coronavirus and with so many people out of work and unsure of how to pay their own bills that some politicians are asking taxpayers to pay off other

peoples’ student loan debts.

And as if that wasn’t outrageous enough, politicians in Washington, D.C., couldn’t resist larding the massive stimulus package sent out in April to millions of cash-strapped Americans with funding for all manner of pet causes, like the Kennedy Center for the Arts, Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

While unelected bureaucrats in the Nation’s Capitol and state capitols all over the country have the gall to believe they can determine which small business owners deserve to have the livelihoods stripped from them, governors in states like Washington have no problem classifying “unions and labor advocates” as essential services, allowing them to continue collecting dues that will, in turn, find its way into the campaign war chests of leftist candidates and causes.

Like entitled, irresponsible students, too many in government think they, too, have more right to your money than you do.

In the name of public health, Americans are being forced to make previously unthinkable sacrifices Benjamin Franklin must have been referring to when he famously said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Some in Congress are trying to slip elements of the Green New Deal into Corona aid packages. Because again, never let a crisis go to waste. The Green New Deal is another massive government scheme to take over massive swaths of the private sector and insert government bureaucrats into our personal lives.

Others are hoping these relief bills are “too big to fail,” and that we’ll be too preoccupied to notice or care.

In the Age of Coronavirus, medical experts have successfully scared a large portion of the American people into giving up our cherished freedoms willingly.

It’s one thing for a business owner or religious leader to close their physical doors on their own terms. It’s one thing if a family decides that a birthday party for grandma isn’t a good idea right now.

It’s another thing entirely for governors to take away their freedom to make their own decisions about such matters.

There is even talk of so-called “immunity cards” that would allow

free-born Americans to leave their homes only with the government’s permission.

In the Age of Coronavirus, big government devotees are showing their true motivations — expanding reliance on government provisions and increasing their control over our everyday lives.

Whether they be local, state, or federal officials, we see too many petty tyrants using this pandemic to make power grabs unthinkable just a few months prior.

And they won’t stop until enough public outrage builds that people simply refuse to comply.

With many of the actions they're taking, the “officials” and “experts” — elected and unelected — are trying to make the working class increasingly dependent on government.

But although these are strange times for Americans, it’s not all doom and gloom.

While the mainstream media want

us to focus on what’s wrong, we can see daily reminders of the goodness of Americans, and America.

Truckers have emerged as the long-unsung heroes everyone now appreciates. They’re getting thanks, waves and free meals from restaurants dotting our country’s highways.

We’re likewise reminded of the vital importance of first responders — whether they be law enforcement, firefighters or healthcare professionals —

for perhaps the first time since the days following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

People are looking in on each other; checking in with neighbors and calling their loved ones more often.

Communities are coming together with volunteer projects to deliver essential items and food to shut-ins and other vulnerable members of our population.

Life has slowed. Families are doubtless spending more time together than they perhaps have in years. People are learning that work doesn’t have to be done in an office building. Spouses are learning what their partner actually does for a living.

Parents are learning more about their childrens’ education and are getting a taste of what it takes to be an educator themselves.

There may even be a surge in families making alternative educational decisions even when the kids can go back to brick-and-mortar government schools.

Americans come together in times of crisis. Americans want to work. The independent spirit we inherited from our Founding Fathers is very much alive.

We don’t need the government as much as the government wants us to need it. We’re Americans, and we’ll get through this.

And of course, we are apparently learning to wash our hands.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 9

PAGE PAGE 10 10

n FREEDOM MATTERS MATTERS n FREEDOM

Attacking Top Down from the

In his own understated management style, President

By BRIAN MINNICH Executive Vice President Trump is taking on government employee unions with the goal of making them more transparent and less overtly political

F

or better or worse, the Trump administration has been anything but conventional, upending entrenched practices and assumptions and wading into policy issues long left unaddressed.

The field of labor relations, particularly in government, is no exception.

While blue-collar support, especially in the Midwest, was key to Trump’s election, his administration has recognized there are important differences between unions representing private-sector workers and those representing public employees.

Of equal importance, the administration has recognized the interests of unions as organizations do not always align with

the interests of the employees they represent.

Beginning in earnest in 2018, the administration has rolled out a series of solid labor policy reform measures.

First out of the gate was a series of three presidential executive orders in the spring of 2018 that sought to, among other things, reign in taxpayer funding of union business, increase the efficiency of the collective bargaining process between federal agencies and unions and streamline the employee discipline and removal process.

Although collective bargaining in the federal government is governed by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute of 1978, which grants certain rights to unions, decades of bargaining have resulted in certain practices developing far beyond what the law required.

The trio of executive orders attempted to roll back many of the less defensible practices as far as possible under the statute.

Take, for example, official time.

Federal law recognizes that, under certain conditions, federal workers who are also union officers can perform union business while on the clock as taxpayer-paid government employees.

But while the law grants unions the right to use official time for certain activities, federal agencies have often consented to provide far more official time than required, in some cases resulting in hundreds of employees in large agencies working full-time on union business while receiving a government salary.

Under Executive Order 13837, however, agencies are directed to generally agree to no more than one hour of official time per year for each union-represented employee when bargaining new union contracts.

While unions delayed the order’s implementation with ultimately unsuccessful federal litigation, since 2019 the order has resulted in significant reductions in grants of official time, to the benefit of taxpayers and efficient government.

Meanwhile, federal agencies have also begun to pick up the pace on important labor reform regulations.

In July 2019, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which oversees and administers collective bargaining laws in the federal government, solicited public comments PAGE 12

n FREEDOM MATTERS

on a proposal to make it easier for federal employees to cancel the deduction of union dues from their wages.

President John F. Kennedy extended collective bargaining to federal employees via executive order in 1962, and Congress eventually followed up by enshrining collective bargaining in federal law in 1978.

But unlike many of their less fortunate counterparts working for state and local government, at no point have federal employees been required to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Nevertheless, past FLRA decisions had interpreted federal law as limiting employees’ ability to cancel union dues deductions from their wages, once begun, to narrow annual intervals.

But, as the Freedom Foundation explained in a comment submitted to the FLRA, the law only says that dues deduction authorizations “may not be revoked for a period of one year,” not automatically renewing one-year intervals. One year after a federal employee authorizes dues deductions, he or she should be free to cancel such deductions at any time.

In a February 2020 decision, the FLRA announced it agreed with this interpretation and that it would update its regulations accordingly. Once that process concludes, federal employees will have that much more control over their wages and participation with a union.

Still, more freedom of choice is of limited benefit without the information needed to make an informed decision.

Thankfully for the millions of state and local public employees freed from mandatory union dues payments by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is advancing two regulations that would help make unions more financially transparent.

The first regulation, proposed by DOL in the spring of 2019, would require certain union-operated trusts to file publicly available financial reports annually with DOL disclosing things like staff and officer compensation and an itemization of all receipts and disbursements of more than $5,000.

Two of the highest-profile union scandals in recent years involved the

financial dealings of union officers administering various employment trusts.

In early 2019, federal officials brought charges against the president and various officers of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 in Philadelphia for criminal activity involving, among other things, embezzling funds from the union and its training and apprenticeship fund.

More recently, the continuing and high-profile federal investigation into the operations of the United Auto Workers — which has already resulted in multiple criminal indictments of highranking UAW officials — uncovered wrongdoing that involved, among other things, misuse of funds meant for a union training center.

DOL’s regulation, which was finalized in March 2020, would go a long way towards exposing and preventing misconduct of this kind from occurring in the future. And, while the regulation makes unions more accountable to their members, it would have benefits for taxpayers, too.

As the Freedom Foundation explained in a comment to DOL supporting the proposal, unions representing home caregivers serving Medicaid-eligible clients are increasingly creating trusts to administer certain tax-funded employment benefits.

In Washington state, SEIU 775 operates several multi-million-dollar trusts, funded with tax dollars, that presently operate with effectively no financial transparency but will presumably be covered by DOL’s regulation.

Unfortunately, legal challenges from unions may delay the effective date of the rule for some time.

Nevertheless, litigation is probably not the greatest threat to the regulation.

A similar regulation was promulgated during the George W. Bush administration and survived various union legal challenges.

However, the Barack Obama

administration repealed the regulation muddled in practice, however, due to treated separately. Some local unions before it formally took effect. unions’ internal structure. affiliated with NEA represent privateAlong similar lines, DOL proposed Most major unions consist of a chain sector employees, so they, and every a regulation early this year to of distinct but affiliated entities. affiliated entity above them up to extend financial transparency and For example, unionized public school the NEA headquarters, must file other measures meant to protect teachers in a given district in Washington financial reports with DOL under the union democracy to certain unions state are technically represented by their LMRDA. But in many states — such as representing public employees local union — the Olympia Education Washington, Oregon and California — that have historically avoided such Association.

NEA affiliates only represent public requirements.

This entity has its own bylaws, elects employees and, consequently, have Since 1959, the Labor-Management it own officers and negotiates and been beyond the reach of the LMRDA. Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) administers the collective bargaining Under DOL’s proposed regulation, has required unions representing agreement covering the teachers in the however, “intermediate bodies” above any private-sector employees to district. local unions but below a national union annually file detailed financial But it is affiliated with a regional subject to the LMRDA would now also statements with DOL. union entity, known as the be subject to the law.

However, unions UniServ, the statewide The upshot is that many state-level "(Janus representing only Washington Education teachers unions and certain other was a) ruling non-federal public Association, and the government unions would have to begin in favor of nonemployees were National Education disclosing their financial activity to DOL not subject Association (NEA) and their members. union workers who to similar in Washington, D.C., Additionally, these entities would be are now ... able to requirements, each of which has its subject to the other provisions of the support a candidate leaving their own bylaws, staff and LMRDA, including its “Bill of Rights” for of his or her choice members in the budget. union members, minimum standards without having those dark about how A portion of the dues for the conduct of union elections, union dues are the local union collects and requirements for various internal who control spent. from each member will go safeguards against misconduct. the Union deciding This distinction to each of these affiliated The Freedom Foundation submitted for them." can get somewhat entities. a comment supporting the regulation For purposes of LMRDA and assisted dozens of public employees reporting, each level in in doing so as well. One public employee "I love the union hierarchy is wrote, the right to “I have been an AFSCME member work. I like it "I fight of Local 2 for 5 years and in that time better because the unions the have never seen an accounting on it is lower. It where my dues go… I’m disgusted time, and I fight is better for by what I see as little to no them very hard. But the people. You oversight on the union’s activities. there are certain I feel our local acts in self-interest are not paying areas of the without regard to its members. I the big fees to country where you want transparency in my union…” the unions." only have unions.

While not yet finalized, the You don't have regulation’s fate will probably be right to determined by the same factors as work."

DOL’s union trust regulation.

Once finalized, the rule will undoubtedly be subject to union legal challenges, but a previous version of the rule survived such challenges during the Bush administration before being rescinded by the Obama administration.

The real question for each of these promising regulatory actions is whether they can be implemented, survive the inevitable legal challenge, and take effect without a different administration pulling the plug.

Only time will tell.

Trump on Unions

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 13

PAGE 14

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Nowadays, we've come to accept the public has an interest in funding basic education. The more relevant questions, however, are what exactly do we mean by 'public interest,' and what type of education best serves it?

C

ollege Board, a not-for-profit organization that advocates for college enrollment and administers the SAT, appeared to validate what your parents always told you about the path to success when it wrote just a year

By JAMI LUND ago that, “In 2018, Senior Policy Analyst the median earnings of bachelor’s degree recipients with no advanced degree working full time were $24,900 higher than those of high school graduates.”

If the the logic of this was flawless and immutable for all college attendees, nobody eligible would miss the opportunity to attend. But among the bits of evidence the College Board assembled are some troubling facts. In 2018, for example, a quarter of those with a college degree earned less than $45,000 annually.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 15

Among recent college graduates, 43 percent were “underemployed” in 2017 meaning the degree was not required for the position they held.

The median earnings of those with only a high school diploma were $40,500 in 2018, which is not far from the earnings of those with “arts and letters” degrees like psychology, education, sociology, English, biology, history and philosophy.

These are the results for those who actually obtain a degree. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that 38 percent of students who begin seeking a bachelor’s degree have not obtained it after six years. These have likely dropped out, although some may have transferred.

The tuition price for a four-year degree can range from $85,000 to $200,000 —if the student finishes within four years. More than half , however, don’t, which means additional terms and tuition to complete.

Public colleges’ tuition costs about a third of the tuition for private schools student, but the overall cost of public institutions is comparable with government funding the difference.

In 2017-18, state and local funding for public higher education averaged $7,850 per student per year. Some of these funds are appropriations directly for public colleges and some are for need-based student grants to cover tuition.

State and local governments provided $85.8 billion to public institutions of higher education in 2017-18. Federal grants and tax benefits provide billions more.

At public four-year institutions, 16 percent of revenue is from federal, state and local student grants, 41 percent of revenue is from state and local appropriations, and the remaining 43 percent from student tuition.

Additional public subsidy comes in the form of federal tax credits.

Student tuition in most cases provides an additional tax credit, American Opportunity Credit (AOC) and the Lifetime Learning Credit (LLC).

The AOC is a one-time full tax credit of $2,500 for most tax filers who are paying tuition. It is even partially refundable if the taxpayer paid no taxes. The LLC is an ongoing $2,000 annual deduction for higher education expenses.

In 2016, students pursuing higher education received about PAGE 16

n FREEDOM MATTERS

$91 billion in financial support from federal spending programs and tax expenditures.

Additional programs stimulated by federal provisions are student loan programs.

As of December 2018, outstanding student loans issued or guaranteed by the federal government totaled $1.4 trillion and a portion of these are eventually forgiven.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that of the loans disbursed from 2020 to 2029 undergraduate borrowers would have $40.3 billion forgiven and graduate borrowers would have $167.1 billion forgiven.

IS HIGHER EDUCATION A REQUIREMENT FOR LIFE? Rhetoric from the Left has recently suggested that the tremendous current investment in college education for the benefit of a portion of the citizenry is not enough, and that college education should be free for all.

Nearly every Democratic candidate for president embraced free two-year colleges, and a few campaigned on free public bachelor’s degrees and college debt elimination.

The irony of taxing the majority of Americans who are employed without a bachelor’s degree to subsidize others who will surpass them in income seems to be lost on the progressive Left.

Such a massive transfer of wealth from the low earners to high earners surely must have some justification unless it is merely pandering to middle-class voters.

It is true that a growing percentage of posted jobs require a degree, and this trend is not expected to change.

Currently 24 percent of the workforce has a bachelor’s degree, and another 15 percent has more than a bachelor’s degree, leaving two-thirds of the current workforce employed without a bachelor’s degree.

Some suggest the growing requirement of a degree is a proxy for a general decline in work ethic and skills.

When applicants for positions are plentiful, requiring a college degree at least weeds out those who have not been able to show the skill set needed to spend four years on an endeavor satisfying requirements set by others.

This idea, called “degree inflation”

by the Harvard Business School researchers, suggests employers need to know that candidates for middle-skills jobs have a grasp of technologies, and written and verbal communications.

Employers defaulted to using college degrees as a proxy for a candidate’s skills.

The report on degree inflation points out the practice hurts the average American’s ability to enter and stay in the workforce, causes employers to pay more without getting any material improvement in productivity and makes many middleskills jobs harder to fill.

Meanwhile, trades and skillsbased employment are key areas of employment growth that don’t require a degree, and yet are not receiving this level of public subsidy.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics faster-than-average growth in the construction industry in this decade, and the median annual wage of $45,820 in 2017 exceeds the $37,690 median wage for all industries.

So what is the public interest in taxing all for the exceptional earning potential of others?

THE POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTERESTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

If there were justification for a large and potentially increasing investment in higher education, what would it be?

The advocates for higher education make these claims. n “Breaking the cycle of poverty” The public has an arguable interest in aiding those raised in poverty to reach a level of self-sufficiency. Many of the discussions about the benefits of higher education boil down to this point.

The public already invests in public assistance, but could save those costs by investing in higher education. n “High-demand jobs” supply needed high-skill, public interest professionals The anecdotal example of this interest is the need for nurses. Data and want advertisements demonstrate that some services are limited or exceptionally costly because of shortages.

The public has an interest in encouraging a ready supply of some services. Defining which services are of “public” interest and which

are of individual or corporate interest is obviously tricky but attempting to do so would help prioritize strategies for serving the public. n “Middle-class access” means good jobs for political constituents’ children This is an often unstated interest hidden in statistics about imported professionals. The implication is that merely having professionals is not enough, even if these have their education subsidized elsewhere. The state has an interest in making sure the next generation of Washingtonians can compete for these jobs with equivalent public subsidy. n “Higher education infrastructure,” creates the capacity to provide higher education services The public has an interest in owning, operating and controlling institutions of higher education to be certain the infrastructure is available to supply the previously mentioned public goods.

In addition to controlling the means to produce graduates, the means to supply public-interest research services is likewise in the public interest.

However, one could easily argue that, as with other industries, a narrower interest in capacity and availability could be met by stimulating the growth and spread of private sector providers.

POSSIBLE SPECIAL INTERESTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The public institutions of higher education have an interest in the growth of their funding, programs, wages and scope.

While public interest is mentioned prominently in their mission statement, the more pressing demand of college administrators is to make payroll, demonstrate progress to trustees and to grow the operation.

Likewise, a cottage industry has grown up around higher education, meaning student loan enterprises, testing organizations and research enterprises also share an interest in the spending on higher education for reasons unrelated to the public interest.

Studies have shown that expanding the availability of public funds, whether by student grants or loans or direct appropriation, has increased the cost of

higher education faster than the rate of inflation.

The economic principles of “free” money being easier to spend would suggest this outcome. A higher education institution, whether public or private, cares more about enrollment and tuition than a trillion dollars in federally backed student debt or even student completion rates.

This is because the bills get paid a year at a time.

Another possible special interest is the businesses that benefit from public subsidy of the training of their workforce or their sector of the economy.

Many employers would love subsidy of the training of employees, and much of the policy seeking targeted subsidies of high-demand jobs are pushed by employers who would otherwise bear the training costs.

Even if workforce training is a public interest, the options for encouraging economic activity are perhaps better addressed in tax policy or economic development policy.

Finally, the students and their families have an interest in their own financial success. To use the government to subsidize the tools of a student’s extraordinary earning potential is not automatically a public interest. When someone starts an auto repair shop, we don’t expect government to buy their building and tools for them.

Instead, the public charges them for permits, impact fees and several layers of taxes that others don’t pay. So why would giving tens of thousands of dollars to provide a middle-class family’s son a law degree be different?

When considering politicians’ rhetoric, testimony in Congress, articles in publications and even young protesters’ signs calling for student debt forgiveness, consider whether the interest prompting the voice is truly a public interest or a private interest.

Using government’s power to fund a narrow financial interest is the very definition of crony capitalism.

EVALUATING HIGHER EDUCATION Thinking about the public interest allows one to leave aside the institutions’ interest in budgets, compensation, program additions

and employees. The “cost” of meeting the public interest is important, but is not necessarily tied to institutional accounting.

If we have correctly identified the public interest, then achieving this interest efficiently could be considered.

For example, the optimal program for meeting the public interest would be offering large scholarships for nursing training to poor students, completing on time and getting placed in the profession.

Unfortunately, our methods of public subsidy for higher education do not demonstrate these priorities.

It is true that most grant and tuition subsidies are needs based, although often with a surprisingly high-income threshold considered “need.”

These programs don’t usually concern themselves with whether students complete their programs or whether the programs students select produce earnings greater than lower levels of education.

Efficiency, relative costs and measures of success also become easier to identify once the “point” of the expenditure is established. For example, keeping track of job placement and wage improvement would be essential to truly know if “breaking the cycle of poverty” was working.

Stimulating interest in “high demand jobs” in shortfall areas can be measured but does not seem to be. Policy solutions could include varying tuition or student grants by degree area in the same manner we encourage select industries with varying tax rates.

Even the objectives of “middle class access” and “higher education infrastructure” are not necessarily related to spending on public institutions.

If the evidence suggests geographical limitations are a problem leading to a deficiency in access and infrastructure, it might still be a more efficient path to the public interest to incentivize private institutions as we do with incentives for business siting in economic development policy.

At any rate, framing public investment in higher education in terms of the public interest would help leaders to develop policy related to accountability, high-demand or performance contracts for higher education.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 17

PAGE 18

n FREEDOM MATTERS

The Wages of Syn

By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor

Robin Hood may be better known, but another fictional English do-gooder had a much sounder grasp of economics.

R

obin Hood may well be the most beloved rogue in all of literature. According to Wikipedia, he’s been the subject to date of at least 72 motion pictures and television productions, not to mention countless print versions of his story.

And why not? He’s got the most populist motto in the business.

“Take from the rich and give to the poor” was resonating with audiences for hundreds of years before the legend was actually set down on paper — and not just by Karl Marx.

John Chandler, author of “The Robin Hood Project,” (University of Rochester, 2006) dates the first

written mention of the famed outlaw to 1377, but even that was just a reference to a character already apparently widely known in the Sherwood or Barnsdale area.

Most likely, he was simply an amalgamation of many legends, all having in common the perfectly understandable individual desire to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labors.

Interestingly, early descriptions of Robin Hood left out the “give to the poor” half of the equation, no doubt because, in those days, monarchs were sufficiently unpopular that just stealing from them was virtue enough. Giving to the poor would have been icing on the cake.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 19

As the years the British crown to went by and pay for a series of every storyteller wars waged in every endeavored to outdo corner of the globe to the competition, acquire and support however, the tale its vaunted empire. was gradually Accordingly, embellished to the Thorndike’s Dr. Syn, point where Robin vicar of the Kent began sharing his village of Dymchurch, booty with those sought to ease his even less fortunate parishioners’ burdens. than himself.

But rather than Before long, he simply stealing what became the literary didn’t belong to him metaphor for income and handing it to redistribution and people who hadn’t the darling for worked for it, Dr. Syn centuries of those went to the trouble of advocating for Big organizing the men of Government and the the region into a gang taxes needed to fund of smugglers. the welfare state they To protect envision. his identity, Dr. The problem with Syn wore a mask this calculation, of that resembled course, is that it relies a scarecrow and, on precisely those together with his conditions that drove fellow outlaws, offRobin Hood to a life loaded kegs of rum of crime in the first and other highly taxed place — namely high goods from French taxes and overregulaand Dutch schooners A PRICE ON HIS HEAD? The economic stimulus policies tion. in the dead of night. of early 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes To be sure, the The merchandise were designed to 'rob from the rich and gIve to the poor.' kingdom of Prince was sold on the black John — serving market at much illegitimately on the throne of chagrin, is that the Robin Hood School cheaper rates because its sales price England while his brother Richard of Economics — as wildly popular as wasn’t inflated by heavy import duties. the Lionhearted was away fighting it may be in works of fiction — doesn’t This benefited the sellers, who in The Crusades, we’re told — isn’t translate in practice, mostly because were granted access — albeit illicitly remembered fondly for its social simply giving away someone else’s — to an important foreign market safety net, and budding outlaws could stuff doesn’t reinforce the good habits that had been closed to it because of hardly be blamed for resenting their the recipient will need to one day be in protectionist economic policies. taxes being spent on lavish banquets a position to buy his or her own stuff.

But it was also a benefit to the at Nottingham Castle to which they It took 400 or so years for that buyers, who could purchase goods weren’t even invited. lesson to sink in, and by the time not otherwise available, and do so at But even though much has changed another great do-gooder of English a price determined by market forces since the days of Medieval England literature arrived on the scene in the rather than arbitrary regulation. and now, the fundamental laws of late-1700s, we’d learned a thing or More broadly, it also forced economics haven’t. And while we two about capitalism. domestic British manufacturers to no longer have kings and castles, at Dr. Christopher Syn was the innovate and economize in order to least in this country, it’s certainly no creation of novelist Russell Thorndike, keep prices low enough to compete coincidence that, according to U.S. who published his first volume in with foreign suppliers.

Census figures, five of the wealthiest 1915. And like Robin Hood, while he Meanwhile, it provided employment counties in the U.S. are within might not have actually existed, the — again, however illicit — to dozens commuting distance of Washington, legend of Dr. Syn is the product of of smugglers who would have been a D.C. genuine historic economic necessity. drain on public resources without it.

And yet we still have poverty.

The real-life inhabitants of the Allowed to flourish, this commerce Then as now, there are rich people marshlands in southern England, like might one day have sparked the develand there are poor people. But the real their descendants in Nottingham’s opment of a legal port industry along money is in its redistribution.

Sherwood Forest, were suffering the underutilized southern British What we’ve discovered, much to our under crippling taxes imposed by coast, and the generation of new PAGE 20

n FREEDOM MATTERS

wealth — as opposed disc in the 1990s. to watching the same The movie's legions dollars being spent by of admirers can be different people. forgiven for being In hindsight, as oblivious to its it's clear both the underlying economic crown and the local message as Robin Hood entrepreneurs would devotees are to his. have been better But before you go off in the long run back to enjoying either by a more handor both purely for their off approach from entertainment value, government. no discussion of Robin What the Dr. Hood or Dr. Syn would Syn saga may lack be complete without in popular appeal considering them compared with Robin as stand-ins for two Hood, it makes up for flesh-and-blood British by being based on characters — economists sounder economic Adam Smith and John principles.

Maynard Keynes.

It also has the Robin Hood, in fact, advantage of being at would have found a least partly true. kindred spirit in Keynes, Thorndike, who who believed economies grew up in the could be stimulated by marshes of Southern government spending.

England, was wellPresident Franklin versed in the legend Roosevelt, in fact, was of gangs of roving a dedicated Keynesian outlaws whose only and based many of his crime was a penchant New Deal policies on its for free enterprise. principles.

NEVER SEEN TOGETHER. Like the fictional Scarecrow And if their realIn hindsight, though, of Romney Marsh, 1700s economist Adam Smith held life leader wasn’t most modern economic that free markets and competition were beneficial. a swashbuckling analysts agree FDR’s cleric disguised as a Robin Hood-style living scarecrow, he shot entirely on location and released income redistribution arguably had something better — a first to theaters in England, whose schemes did little to end the Great firm grasp of supply-side economics. audiences loved its rollicking theme Depression of the 1930s and might Thorndike killed off his fictional song, terrifying Scarecrow costume actually have prolonged it until protagonist at the end of his first novel, and a maniacally blood-curdling laugh America entered World War II in 1941 simply titled, “Dr. Syn.” But when it McGoohan created just for the part. and had no choice but to reinvent its proved an enormous hit with readers, The movie’s producers were economy along more capitalistic lines. the author quickly followed up with confident Americans would respond Meanwhile, Dr. Syn — had he a series of stories depicting what the with equal enthusiasm, and they existed — would have been a good reverend had been doing in the edited it into three one-hour segments, contemporary of Smith and no doubt a years prior to assuming his criminal to be presented in serial form on NBC’s disciple, as well. duties in the pulpit of Dymchurch.

“Wonderful World of Color” at 7 p.m.

Dubbed the “Father of Capitalism,” And it wasn’t all as noble as his beginning on Sunday, Feb. 6, 1964.

Adam Smith’s masterpiece, “The midnight romps as the Scarecrow.

But if that date and time don't ring Wealth of Nations,” was among the The character eventually found his a bell, they should. By an unfortunate first texts of its kind to champion free way to the big screen in 1937, with a coincidence, another British import — markets, competition and a laissez-faire surprisingly lackluster British motion the Beatles — were also making their approach by government as the only picture featuring George Arliss in the American debut at exactly the same appropriate tools to grow an economy. title role. moment on CBS’s “Ed Sullivan Show.”

As escapist entertainment, there’s It would take the storytelling Predictably, ratings for the “Scarelittle question Robin Hood, Keynes genius of Walt Disney 25 years later, crow” were abysmal, but those and their merry band of income though, to finally do the tale justice. who did see it were enthralled. And redistributionists spin a better yarn.

Starring the uber-suave Patrick despite rarely being seen for the next But in the real world of supply and McGoohan and a distinguished 30 years, the movie became a cult demand, there’s a far more compelling British cast, the Disney-produced favorite and has sold consistently well case to be made for Adam Smith and “Scarecrow of Romney Marsh” was since Disney released it on compact his free-trading alter ego, Dr. Syn. FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 21

By ASHLEY VARNER VP for Information

PAGE 22

n FREEDOM MATTERS

"WE CAN CONTROL IT THIS TIME"

By BEN STRAKA There's a Policy Analyst reason why millennials say they have a favorable opinion of socialism.

They're being peddled a fantasy version of it.

I

t’s hard to dispute the fact that in recent years, socialism has, in one form or another, garnered increasingly serious consideration among certain demographics of the American body politic as a viable political and economic option.

While the reemergence of socialist thought in America hasn’t yet proved powerful enough to propel the likes of Bernie Sanders to mainstream victory in his recent bids for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, there’s enough mounting eviFREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 23

dence to suggest that history’s most tried-and-failed political philosophy is becoming increasingly poplular among young Americans.

Recent Gallup polls, for example, suggest that nearly 50 percent of millennials hold a positive view of socialism, while others indicate that roughly the same amount say they’d prefer to live in a socialist country.

Meanwhile, Sanders’ relative popularity on the national stage indicates a growing tolerance of socialist ideas in mainstream circles, and the new wave of “democratic socialism” he’s carried with him has swept a cadre of self-proclaimed socialist politicians into federal, state and local office in recent years.

But what is democratic socialism, anyway? Is it even possible for socialism to be remotely democratic? Moreover, how does the watered-down version of this notoriously authoritarian ideology truly differ from any of history’s most dangerous “-isms” that inevitably take root when individual rights are transferred away from citizens into the hands of the government?

Proponents of democratic socialism in America today are quick to emphasize the “democratic” part of their name. Yet at its core, the defining tenet of socialism in the 21st Century remains the same as it always was — abolishing private ownership of the means of production (i.e. the free market) and replacing it with a planned economy either wholly or substantially controlled by the state.

The nation’s largest democratic socialist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), sums up its ideology as follows: "Let's say you were negotiating at a bargaining table with workers in a bakery, and the workers said, 'Look, we want more than a quarter of the bread; we want half of the bread or we want two-thirds of the bread." The socialist would say, 'Actually, we want the bakery. We want to control it all, for all of our benefit.' "

According to DSA director Maria Svart, democratic socialists view capitalism as “fundamentally undemocratic” and ultimately hope to establish a political system under which crucial sectors of the American economy are owned entirely by the government while others are controlled

PAGE 24 n FREEDOM MATTERS

(and this is where they tout the “democratic” part of their name) by worker-owned cooperatives.

But for all their posturing about socialism going hand-in-hand with democracy, socialists today offer little evidence to suggest they know what the terms — or the philosophies behind them — truly mean.

The famous French political observer and classical liberal Alexis de Tocqueville put it quite bluntly: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: While democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

Serious students of history have long known, as did de Tocqueville, that socialism’s inherent statist and redistributive principles are diametrically opposed to the idea of American democracy to begin with.

In truth, the fact that socialism cannot feasibly coexist with American democracy may not pose any problem for the most ardent of today’s socialist movement, many of whom, like the DSA, are transparent about their desire to “radically transform” the current American democratic system of government.

Yet at least in the most public-facing

circles, democratic socialist politicians like Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) are keen on insisting that their platform will somehow be different from both the authoritarian regimes of communist leaders past and the failures of modern socialist experiments in countries like Venezuela.

It seems the next brand of socialism will always be “different.”

Take Sanders’ stance on the current economic catastrophe and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, for example.

Though the senator from Vermont has now dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, his sympathies for the dictatorial regime under disputed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro — successor to Hugo Chavez — brought him highly publicized heat on the campaign trail from Republicans and Democrats alike.

It also demonstrated his failure to answer the one question America’s democratic socialists need to address most: Really, how will the “democratic socialism” they envision for America differ in any meaningful way from garden-variety socialism?

History, as always, provides the answer — it won’t. To the contrary, the ghosts of socialism both past and present teach us a difficult lesson the far left doesn’t seem to want to

learn, namely that this radical ideology inevitably leads nations down a dark road to economic depression and political tyranny.

Case in point, isn’t socialism just communism by a different name? What about Marxism?

For that matter, what makes it all that different from any other oppressive “-isms” you can name?

Political theorists may disagree, but after all, both Marx and Lenin believed the goal of socialism was communism.

Who better to listen to than the theory’s most influential thinker — still lauded by groups like the DSA — and one of its leading practitioners?

By its very nature, Marxism necessitates the suppression of individual rights in achieving its end goal. Even worse, Marx himself wrote, along with Friedrich Engels in “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) that communism’s ends “… can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions.”

The latter has proven true in the worse of cases — and it’s unfortunately more than an unintended consequence.

From Russia to China to South America, the list of violent and bloody conflicts used as means to achieve the socialist-communist end is long. And even in cases where violence hasn’t been used, the long-term economic impact of socialism has time and time

again devastated nations and left their citizens to suffer.

One need look no further than Venezuela, where the country is facing an economic crisis worse than the Great Depression, people are starving, and government critics are being killed.

If you need another example, turn to Cuba to see how its economy is faring after some 50 years of socialist rule.

Modern apologists for socialism (and, for that matter, communism) must always mislabel their product — adding the qualifier “democratic,” for example — and insist we can’t be sure socialism can’t work because “real socialism” has never been tried.

The problem with that explanation is that no other version of socialism is possible. Venezuela and Cuba aren’t exceptions to an ideal somehow invalidated by the uncharacteristic greed and corruption of those in charge.

They’re the only logical conclusion in a philosophy that empowers a small group of flawed human beings to impose an arbitrary standard of fairness on everyone else.

It never takes long before the standard is redefined to allow those making the rules to benefit disproportionately. To be fair, capitalism is burdened by its share of corruption, too. But the system’s inherent strength is that decisions are made not by one or a handful of humans, but by millions.

When the ruling elite act in their own self-interest, the resulting decisions are — by definition — not what’s best for everyone. But to the extent free markets are permitted to express our collective will, the ultimate result will always come closer to objective fairness than under any other system imaginable.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system on earth — except for everything else.

Eager as they may be to feel “revolutionary, it’s a safe bet many of America’s leftist millennials checking off the “positive” box on Gallup’s socialism poll don’t actually want the experience of a Russian or Chinese-style revolution on their own turf. Nor do they want to suffer under the oppressive rule of a dictator like Venezuela’s Maduro (just think how much some like to think they’re oppressed under President Trump).

No, it’s much more likely the country’s growing body of young socialists simply want all the free stuff promised by Bernie Sanders and snake oil salesmen like him — until they actually have the power and the bills start coming due.

That doesn’t mean it’s to be taken lightly, though. Now, more than ever, it’s important to educate young Americans about what “-isms” like socialism really mean and the dark places to which history shows us they lead.

The fact remains that one “-ism” in particular — capitalism — has consistently provided more economic opportunity to the masses than any other political or economic system known yet to man. It may not be a perfect system, but as de Tocqueville wrote about democracy, “(It) seeks equality in liberty.”

By protecting individual liberty and encouraging competitive free enterprise, the American democratic experiment has successfully grown this nation — and its people — to become the most prosperous on earth.

It would seem, therefore, that the proper solution to the world’s economic difficulties should be to encourage more people to freely participate in this competitive process, rather than to once again follow socialism — “democratic” or otherwise — down the slippery slope it leads to economic destruction and, inevitably, government tyranny.

History’s signposts are clear, and we must follow them.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 25

the

Next

By JAMI LUND Senior Policy Analyst

BIG ThinG

PAGE 26

n FREEDOM MATTERS

If public-sector unions thought Janus was devastating,wait'll they get a load of a follow-up lawsuit many believe has the potential to change the whole dynamic between workers and government unions.

By JAMES ABERNATHY Litigation Counsel

T

he question of whether government employees could be forced to join — and financially support the political activities of — a labor union has been hotly contested almost from the moment cities and states first began permitting collective bargaining in the late 1950s.

Since then, the issue has been shaped by numerous court decisions, most recently Janus v. AFSCME in 2018, which the unions and their backers — all their denials notwithstanding — recognize was a body blow to the legalized protection racket they’ve been operating for decades.

But the war isn’t over. In fact, a case currently working its way through the court system, Belgau v. Inslee, has the potential to be the next in a long line of important precedents.

It promises to change the entire dynamic between unions and government

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 27

workers by actually applying the language of Janus and the clear intentions of its authors.

First, though, let’s review how we got here.

In 1977 the United States Supreme Court issued a decision the justices believed would settle the matter: States and unions could force public employees to subsidize collective bargaining but not unions’ political speech.

For more than 40 years, this decision — Abood v. Detroit Board of Education — wreaked havoc in publicsector employment. Unions, however, were no strangers to political gamesmanship and immediately went to work devising ways to exploit publicsector workers by cashing in on the political power of the politicians they were able to buy or bully.

Through compelled union dues, public workers were forced to fund their own intimidation and exploitation.

For the four decades following Abood, public employees’ rights were extremely limited and very few ever even learned of them. Moreover, workers who learned of their rights faced complicated, union-dominated procedures when they attempted to exercise them.

Simply put, since Abood, unions have perfected systemic intimidation, and courts let them get away with it — unfortunately holding all of the aforementioned practices constitutional.

It wasn’t until the 2010s that the Supreme Court finally signaled a willingness to seriously push back against what the justices eventually came to call the “abuses” heaped upon public employees by union executives more interested in filling their pockets than protecting employees’ First Amendment rights and public employers who shrank in the face of union intimidation and political power.

In 2012, the Supreme Court issued Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, in which it held unconstitutional the union practice of imposing special political assessments against nonmember employees who had already objected to union membership and the payment of full union dues. The court stated boldly that: “Because a public-sector union takes many positions during collec-

PAGE 28

n FREEDOM MATTERS

tive bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences, the compulsory fees constituted a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a significant impingement on First Amendment rights.

Our cases to date have tolerated this impingement, and we do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.”

The ruling also referred to the court’s previous acceptance of compelled union fees as “an anomaly” in First Amendment jurisprudence.

Encouragingly, the court also questioned opt-out schemes, calling them “a remarkable boon for unions,” even though normally courts “do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.”

These statements signaled to many the justices might be willing to revisit Abood and the question of whether compelled union fees were indeed constitutional.

Two years later, the Supreme Court issued Harris v. Quinn, in which it declined to extend Abood’s tolerance of compelled union fees to partial-public employees such as home healthcare providers who are, in reality, employed by the client receiving the assistance and only subsidized by Medicaid.

The Harris ruling again referred to Abood as “an anomaly,” and called Abood’s reasoning “questionable on several grounds.” The court concluded Abood could not be extended to partial-public employees because it is a “bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

The days of compelled union fees were coming to an end, and unions could read the writing on the wall.

Finally, in 2018, the Supreme Court delivered the kill shot to compelled union fees in Janus v. AFSCME. The landmark ruling concluded that, “Abood was wrongly decided and is now overruled.”

“Abood’s proponents,” it read, “have abandoned its reasoning, the precedent has proved unworkable, (and) it conflicts with other First Amendment decisions.”

The ruling further affirmed what had been obvious to most for decades — that Abood has led to “practical problems and abuse.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito noted that, “(N)either an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”

Contrary to the unions’ subsequent arguments, however, Janus did much more than simply prohibit compelled union fees. It also required affirmative consent to the payment of union dues before union dues could be exacted from employees. “(B)y agreeing to pay (dues), nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed,” Alito wrote.

“Rather, to be effective, the waiver must be freely given and shown by clear and compelling evidence.”

At a minimum, the wording should put an end to “opt-out schemes” that resulted in the payment of so-called “agency fees” to the union without the workers’ consent.

But applied correctly, Janus should go much farther.

By affirming that the payment of union dues requires an informed and affirmative waiver of First Amendment rights, the ruling obligates unions and employers to obtain clear and compelling evidence that employees know of — and have voluntarily waived — their right to pay nothing to their union.

Unsurprisingly, unions emphatically deny that interpretation of the ruling, while simultaneously scheming to circumvent it.

For example, even before the ruling was issued, unions created new membership cards that included irrevocability provisions that trap employees into paying union dues for a year at a time and limit employees’ ability to object to union membership and dues payments to only a narrow 10-day to two-week annual escape period.

Unions have for decades used compelled fees as leverage to bully employees into become full, dues-paying union members rather than paying reduced agency fees by depriving nonmembers of the ability to vote on the employment contract the union

Signs of

Freedom would negotiate and would be forced on union members and nonmembers alike. (Amazingly, courts permitted this union practice.)

Moreover, employers and unions continue to enforce maintenance of membership agreements, which also trap employees into paying union dues for long periods of time even after they learn of their rights for the first time and opt out.

Old habits die hard, and the unions — having spent 40 years pushing the envelope under Abood — clearly in-

tend to do the same under Janus.

That’s where Belgau v. Inslee comes in.

The case involves seven Washington state employees who are challenging deduction of union dues from their wages by a state employer over their objections.

These employees, represented

by Freedom Foundation attorneys, signed union membership and dues deduction authorization cards in the months leading up to Janus. Union leaders did not, however, notify these

employees of their rights and offered them nothing in exchange for agreeing to the irrevocability provisions in the cards.

Obviously, these cards do not constitute clear and compelling evidence the employees knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived their First Amendment right to pay nothing to a union. (The case is currently pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It has been fully briefed and argued, and a decision is expected soon.)

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 29

SHOTGUN

WEDDING

S

ince the whole point of being represented by a labor union in the first place is to obtain better wages, benefits and working conditions than those who aren't, you'd think unions would make it their business to ensure nonmembers were never covered by a collective bargaining agreement they By MATT HAYWARD hadn't shared the Outreach Director cost of negotiating.

But if that's what you thought, you’ve obviously fallen for the union canard about their concern for the best interests of their members rather than what benefits the union leaders and, just as importantly, the politicians being corrupted with someone else's dues money.

In fact, the last

So-called 'forced representation' may not help non-unionized workers or dues-paying members, but the labor bosses are pretty excited about it.

thing unions want is to disassociate themselves from what they derisively call “free riders.”

What they really want is to go back to the good, old days when everyone was a “forced rider.”

It works like this: Unions complain loud and long about being required to represent every worker in a given bargaining unit, even those not paying dues. But it wasn’t the workers who insisted on unions being required to represent everyone. It was the unions who lobbied for and/or wrote their states' collective bargaining laws in the first place.

In unions’ perfect world, employees would still be forced to choose between paying full dues and being fired. But failing that, they’d settle for an arrangement under which even those who choose not to join the union are still charged a so-called “agency fee” to compensate the union for providing representation services the worker manifestly doesn't want.

There’s just one tiny problem with such a scheme — it’s unconstitutional.

That was the conclusion of no less than the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) that compelled union dues — or fees — are a form of forced political speech, which violates the First Amendment.

In the wake of the ruling, thousands of government employees all around the country have left their union, but not without a fight — typically one that involves a union leader crying real tears in front of a legislative committee about how ungrateful workers are getting the benefit of union representation without paying for it.

The answer to their manufactured problem is simple — just drop the legal obligation for unions to represent both members and nonmembers. Let the unions speak for their members while the unrepresented workers negotiate their own compensation packages, like 90 percent of the U.S. workforce does.

What unions want is akin to the government granting a divorce, then ordering one of the parties to allow the other to speak for and legally represent them.

First, it isn't up to the provider of a service to determine whether it is or isn’t a benefit. That privilege belongs to the consumer — in this case, the worker.

PAGE 32

n FREEDOM MATTERS

If he or she believes union representation is beneficial, they’re free to pay for it. But if not, they can no more be forced to pay for something they don’t want than the union can be to provide it for free.

Perhaps more fundamentally, the court recognized the business of negotiating a contract is inherently an exercise in political speech because it necessarily involves elected leaders and public employees haggling over the taxpayers’ money.

And if political speech can't be compelled, neither can the dues dollars that pay for it.

By any objective standard, forced representation is just as unconstitutional as forced dues or union membership.

And the practice is even less justifiable on practical grounds.

Forced representation, for example, grants the union from whom the worker has just obtained a divorce access to his or her personal contact information, which it then may use to harass him or her into resuming the relationship.

Can you imagine the outrage if a wife or husband asked for a divorce from their abusive spouse, only to be ordered by the court to meet regularly and receive counseling from them?

Not only is it impossible for these public employees to prevent the union from contacting them, but the state actually requires it.

Take Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 775 as an example. SEIU 775 has a monopoly on representing Washington state’s individual homecare providers (IPs).

Workers who are not members and do not pay union dues are still required by the state to obtain training offered exclusively by SEIU to maintain their certification.

For an IP to find out when and where the mandatory training is, they must contact the union. Not surprisingly, every IP who contacts the union is solicited and harassed to sign up or re-sign an irrevocable union membership card that provides direct access to the worker’s bank account.

IPs who refuse to sign have been guilted, shamed, hung up on and treated poorly.

Public employees who’ve left their union are prevented from negotiating their own contract with the state, not

to mention having their privacy rights violated by unions granted access to their personal information.

Those workers may then be forced to endure coercive union solicitations, which are just as unconstitutional and harmful as compelling them to pay for the so-called privilege.

How can union supporters justify this behavior?

No argument against right-to-work protections is as fammiliar as the “free rider” argument. Allowing someone to opt out of paying for a service being provided — even against the recipient’s wishes — is obviously a point of moral outrage to those footing the bill.

But why are employees who exercise their right not opt out — or never joined in the first place — still covered by the union-negotiated collective bargaining contract?

Why does the union represent nonmembers, sometimes against their will?

The National Labor Relations Act, passed in the 1930s, governs private-sector unions and first established the practice of exclusive representation. The Supreme Court later upheld the law in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, and it continues to provide unions the excuse to represent the employees in a particular workplace exclusively.

But public-sector unions are governed by state law, not federal law. Each state that allows collective bargaining determines its own rules and regulations around the arrangement. It would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which unions were not involved in the writing and lobbying of these laws.

The next time you hear someone make the “free rider” argument, ask if they’d support allowing those workers to be free to represent themselves.

Most people will say yes.

The glaring exception to this rule is union leaders, who enthusiastically support the concept of “exclusivity.”

When Doug Pratt, a lobbyist for the Michigan Education Association, was asked in a state Senate committee hearing if the union would like the option of not representing nonmembers, his response was, “No.” An average, rank-and-file union member is — and should

Bill proposed in Congress could end forced representation first in private sector, then government

You got nothing to Worry about, Pal.

I'll give My union the Best representation your money can buy.

Last November, U.S. Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Greg Murphy (R-NC) and Dr. Phil Roe (R-TN) introduced the Worker’s Choice Act, which would amend the National Labor Relations Act to empower employees in a unionized workplace to independently negotiate their employment terms with their employer.

The bill, HR 5147, is currently under consideration in the House Education Committee and, although it only affects private-sector workers as currently drafted, the measure could serve as a model that could be adapted for government employees, as well.

In Right-to-Work states like those represented by the authors of the measure, an employee who opts out of union participation is still subject to the collectively bargained employment terms negotiated by the union.

The National Labor Relations Act provides unions with exclusive bargaining power, but under the Worker’s Choice Act, workers will not be forced to have unions represent their interests and dictate employment terms.

The Worker’s Choice Act is supported by Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, the Institute for the American Worker, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Center for Worker Freedom, Americans for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth.

“Employees deserve their own negotiating power,” said Johnson. “The Worker’s Choice Act allows American workers in union shops to set their own terms with their boss, the employer.”

“Ending exclusive representation would be a huge victory for workers’ freedom,” Murphy said. “Jobs today are more unique, and many workers want more flexibility

be — on board with changing the long-standing policy of exclusive representation and insist his or her union devote its time and resources to negotiating only for dues-paying members.

Nonmembers should not be guaranteed or required to have the same wages, retirement, etc.

No person should ever be forced to pay for a service voluntarily provided by someone else. No one can show up at your house, mow your lawn and leave you a bill simply because they claim you benefited from the exchange.

and opportunity than rigid union-negotiated contracts provide. Ending this relic of the past would free unions from having to represent non-dues paying members and it would free workers to choose their own method of negotiations—including one that does not force them into employment contracts that don’t represent what they want and need.”

“With the rapid growth of the U.S. economy, and more job openings than job seekers, workers are benefiting like never before,” said Rep. Roe. “I am proud to join my friend and colleague Congressman Dusty Johnson in supporting this commonsense piece of legislation to help empower workers to choose their workplace representation and to earn higher wages.”

That would be insane, and so is a group of public employees telling someone they’re going to represent them whether they like it or not.

If a person does not ask for your help, regardless of your actions, it is not rational to claim that person could owe you anything. If you do something for someone unsolicited, that is a charitable act, not a payable service.

Unions can’t have it both ways.

They can’t demand a monopoly on representation, lobbying for and requiring the exclusive right of representation, and also complain about “free riders.”

If they want to do away with socalled free riders, why not support allowing workers to have their voices back? Why don’t they stop insisting on speaking for people who never asked them to?

Representing people against their will is not a noble action; it is done to stifle competition, to create a monopoly and to provide a bogus moral argument to use guilt and shame as tools against those that do not want to be affiliated with a private organization as a condition of employment.

And it needs to stop.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 33

Liberal Flim-Flam Machine Union Made

PAGE 34

n FREEDOM MATTERS

God Playing

America's founding document makes it clear that basic liberties come from our Creator. with the But liberals have concluded they can be manufactured whenever voters t’s probably an overstatement to say no one likes liberal ideas. After all, someone showed up at all those Bernie Sanders rallies. demand new ones.

But even die-hard leftists seem to understand instinctively their core o

I

Constitution

values are far too radical for most Americans. Why else would they feel the need to constantly redefine basic terms in order to camouflage their true motives?

Classical liberalism, to cite just the most obvious

By JEFF RHODES example, bears precious little resemblance to Managing Editor what the phrase has been co-opted to mean these days. The expression was originally coined to describe individuals who considered themselves more open to change and new ideas than so-called conservatives, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a more dogmatic bunch than the liberals enforcing speech codes today’s college campuses.

It didn’t stop there, though. Having managed to successfully reinterpret the word “liberal” as meaning precisely the opposite of what it

RIGHTS FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 35

was always intended to represent, statists began recoiling in horror when it was actually applied to them.

Think back to the last Democratic presidential debate you managed to stay awake through. Was anyone onstage fighting to assume the mantle of the party’s “true liberal” the way Republican candidates argue over which is the “true conservative?” Or were they decrying the use of labels they found too confining?

Chances are it was the latter because, again, they’d rather be judged by all the empty promises they can spew rather than tie themselves by name to an ideology even they know has a long track record of failure.

These days, in fact, the word liberal itself is being phased out in favor of the alternative “progressive” in a brazen attempt to associate people who get physically ill at the thought of a tree being chopped down or a dollar earned with technological or economic progress.

An even more shameless bit of linguistic legerdemain, however, is the relatively recent creation of the euphemism “positive rights” to describe a doctrine that is neither positive nor concerned with rights.

By definition, positive rights are commodities promised by pandering politicians to a particular voting bloc in return for their support at the ballot box. The catch is that, unlike what we’ve regarded as rights for nearly 250 years, positive rights impose obligations — and monetary costs — on other free Americans.

Such old-fashioned rights as the freedoms of speech, religion, press and assembly have been re- classified as “negative” rights, enabling modern liberals to manufacture an eclectic new menu of so-called “positive” rights that include everything from the right to free healthcare and a college education to a guaranteed income for life whether you ever work another day or not.

How are they planning to pay for all this? They never get terribly specific — usually the buck gets passed to anybody and everybody richer than the person asking the question.

But philosophically, it hardly matters.

Once you’ve accepted that something is a right rather than a privilege, it has to be funded no matter what.

And therein lies the rub.

In a constitutional republic like the United States, it is understood our rights come from our maker, not from PAGE 36

n FREEDOM MATTERS

governments and most assuredly not from other human beings. The Bill of Rights enumerates the most basic of these and makes clear government has no power to abridge them, nor does it claim to be their source.

Whoever our creator is, he, she or it endowed us with the right to speak, worship, publish and associate as we please. And the Constitution protects our exercise of these rights from government intrusion precisely because no one else has to be affected in any way when we do.

But that’s not true with respect to positive rights. When you assert that someone has a right to free healthcare or college tuition, it necessarily follows that someone must provide it — either alone or under some public-financing scheme in which the cost is shared by taxpayers whether they want to or not.

Cynically, the only reason some believe positive rights should be elevated to the status of rights at all is to spare liberals the necessity of defending their ideas — something they’ve never been very good at.

When a privilege becomes a right, the burden isn’t on the person exercising it to justify why he should be able to; it’s been shifted to the person who wants to take it away to justify why they shouldn’t.

It’s a familiar debating tactic for liberals. Years ago, for example, when states were deciding the question of same-sex marriage, those in favor of the proposition argued that homosexuals were entitled to the same right to get married enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

And to Americans and their innate sense of fair play, it made a compelling argument. But that reasoning wrongly assumes a marriage license has ever been a “right” for anyone.

In reality, marriage is a legal instrument — a privilege created by governments and extended to those who meet agreed-upon standards, just as we do with drivers’ and hunting licenses.

No one’s maker endowed them with a right to be married or, more fundamentally, a right to force another free American to perform the wedding ceremony, arrange the flowers, bake the cake or in any way respect an institution that violates his or her core principles.

If you want to make the case and pass a law to that effect, that’s why the Constitution created Congress and state

legislatures. But referring to the privilege of marriage — for anyone — as a right is nothing more than a debating technique to eliminate the justification step from the process and shift the burden of proof to the wrong party.

But perhaps the most disingenuous component of the liberals’ handiwork is their contention that fabricated, phony entitlements promised by demagogues in the heat of a campaign can be slotted neatly in the Bill of Rights alongside our genuine expressions of liberty.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is axiomatic that “positive” rights cannot co-exist with “negative” rights, and that acceptance of one absolutely dooms the other.

The colonists who first came to this country — like the pioneers who settled it and the Founding Fathers who adopted the governmental model that made it a reality — shared a common vision. They asked only the chance to go as far as their hard work, sacrifice and good fortune took them.

They sought no favors; only the freedom to live their own vision … so long as their actions hurt no one else.

The entire concept of positive rights invalidates the fundamental moral contract on which the U.S. was constructed in the first place. Not only does it make beggars out of the entire population, but it condemns those who take responsibility for themselves to the slavery of having to provide anyway what their neighbors can’t or won’t earn themselves.

A citizen cannot simultaneously celebrate the right to live free while demanding another give up his rights.

Again, the function of the Constitution is not to create rights but to safeguard those we were born with from the heavy hand of government.

But a system that recognizes the right to seize what belongs to another is by nature in the business of pitting some rights against others.

Under such an arrangement, the government becomes no more than the engine of redistribution, handed the inherently corrupting power to decide from whom to take and to whom it will be given.

Since no objective standard for such an enterprise exists, the arrangement inevitably deteriorates into one of rule not by objective law but by flawed humans — who will ascribe to themselves the authority to de-

RIGHTS = EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS The next time someone tells you they have a right to something, run it through your critical thinking filter. Do they have an exclusive claim?

I have a right to...

THINGS THAT GO INTO AND OUT OF MY BODY INCLUDING LABOR & PROPERTY

IF THEY DO, THEY ARE MAKING A NEGATIVE CLAIM. SUCH CLAIMS DO NOT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE AND ARE TOTALLY VALID.

IF NOT, THEY'RE MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM. SUCH CLAIMS PUT A BURDEN ON OTHER PEOPLE AND ARE INVALID.

cide which rights need protection and which do not on an arbitrary, case-bycase basis.

Unfortunately, because it’s arbitrary and capricious, the doctrine of positive rights means pretty much what its arbiters say it means at any given moment. As long as one group is being handed resources earned by somebody else, that’s all that counts.

One day it’s subsidizing AIDS research that tops the to-do list, the next it’s promoting culture by splurging on the National Endowment for the Arts and PBS. The next it’s curing everyone

UM...

FREE TUITION, FREE MEDICAL CARE, FREE INCOME, FREE FOOD...

of smoking and plundering the tobacco companies.

No principles, no logic, no standards of restraint, and no definite way to know from day to day to the next actions will be protected as rights and which will warrant discouraging or punishment.

Whatever the leaders say goes, so long as they pay lip service to democracy in the process.

If we have any hope of reversing course and achieving a more consistently free society, it’s long past time to abandon the counterfeit

CORRECT

NOPE

standard of rights and restore a gold standard that’s served this nation spectacularly well for more than two centuries.

The only rights worth recognizing are those that come from nature and, under the Constitution, cannot be revoked by the government. Anything else is just a want being elevated to the status of a right by someone who doesn’t understand what he or she is proposing won’t work. Or worse, they do understand, but their lust for power has blinded them to the consequences of their irresponsibility.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 37

ACTIONTIMELINE ACTION TIMELINE Highlighting a few of the Freedom Foundation’s signature accomplishments over the past half year

Nov. 21 The Wall Street Journal publishes an article chronicling the loss of government employee union membership during the first year and a half after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. The article makes special mention of the Freedom Foundation’s success in this area.

Nov. 26

The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of seven University of California employees whose attempts to opt out of AFSCME 3299 were rebuffed by the union.

Dec. 3

The Columbus Dispatch, publishes an op-ed authored by Freedom Foundation Ohio Director Lindsey Queen headlined, “Public Worker Need to Understand Their Rights About Union Membership.”

Dec. 6

The News Tribune publishes an op-ed written by Freedom Foundation managing editor Jeff Rhodes headlined, “Until Unions Fully Comply with Janus the Fight Will Go On,” noting that an earlier TNT piece essentially concedes the Freedom Foundation’s actions all along have amounted to simple fairness — which the unions are still fighting tooth and nail.

bearing information about how workers can give themselves a hefty Christmas present by opting out of union dues in the coming year.

Dec. 10

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments in the case of Belgau v. Inslee, et al. Represented by the Freedom Foundation, the seven plaintiffs — all Washington state employees — argue Janus requires the union to not only obtain a worker’s permission before deducting dues but also inform him or her that their decision to pay union dues means they are waiving their right not to.

Dec. 10

California’s Orange County Register publishes an op-ed chastising the state’s public employee unions for resisting compliance with Janus v.

AFSCME. Headlined, “Unions Must Follow Court’s Ruling,” the editorial says the Freedom Foundation is “... helping employees exert their rights.”

Jan. 2

Dec. 9

Newspapers in Washington’s two largest cities published features during January about the Freedom Foundation’s latest outreach effort to the state’s teachers, and the appearance of both within days of each other simply proves the Freedom Foundation story is too big to ignore.

The Freedom Foundation launches its annual holiday outreach campaign in which paid canvassers make uninvited visits to state office buildings dressed as Santa Claus

The Freedom Foundation holds a press conference in Huntington Beach, Calif., to announce the filing of a lawsuit alleging the California State Law Enforcement Association

PAGE 38

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Jan. 7

Keeping Score How big a bite has the Freedom Foundation taken out of publicsector unions since the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2018 issued its ruling in Janus v.

AFSCME? We estimate more than 75,000 have opted out with our assistance.

In addition: n Thanks to the Freedom Foundation’s outreach efforts, 112 public employees chose freedom on Jan. 5 alone by opting out of their unions. So far, the highest oneday opt-out total for 2020. n Membership in the secondlargest union representing public school employees in Washington state has declined by 3,559 members since 2018.

The Public School Employees of Washington/ Service Employees International Union Local 1948 (PSE), representing bus drivers, paraeducators, cafeteria workers, maintenance, office staff and other non-teaching classified public school person, has been one of the Freedom Foundation’s top out-reach priorities over the past year.

(CSLEA), the union representing the lifeguards, refused to free more than two dozen lifeguards, arguing they had to remain in the union until the end of its collective bargaining agreement with the California Department of Parks & Recreation, which expires in 2023.

Jan. 13

The Seattle Times publishes a guest opinion written by Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Max Nelsen critical of a plan by the Seattle City Council to limit the ability of most big donors to affect municipal elections while leaving unions free to do as they always have.

Leave a legacy of freedom

Jan. 20 The Freedom Foundation files a class-action lawsuit on behalf of several University of Washington employees whose attempts to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights to opt out of union membership and dues are being thwarted by the school and the union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 925.

Jan. 31

The Freedom Foundation files two lawsuits in Washington and one in Oregon on behalf of public-sector employees who were not only denied their constitutionally protected rights to opt out of union membership and dues, but who also had their names forged on the documents that authorized their paycheck deductions in the first place.

Feb. 4

The Freedom Foundation files an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting University of Maine Prof. Jonathan Reisman’s petition and urging the court to strike down state laws requiring public employees to accept unwanted union representation.

March 4

The Freedom Foundation announces Connor Hines will join its just-opened Ohio office as outreach director.

March 6

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announces a final regulation extending financial transparency requirements to certain trusts

The wealth of our country exists in large part in the savings and hard-earned assets of good people who have endured, sacrificed and succeeded. It is their legacy that stands poised to be transferred to the next generation.

Will these funds be a windfall profit for government programs, new capital for center-left organizations? Or will they be a responsible transfer of values held dear by the good people who earned the money?

Join the fight against the tyranny of the government unions.

Become a member of the Freedom Foundation today. Donate online at www.freedomfoundation.com For information on how to become a member of our Legacy Society, contact www.freedomfoundation/legacy

operated by labor unions. The new rule implements a Freedom Foundation recommendation to make unions and their affiliates more accountable.

March 17

The Freedom Foundation submitted comments to the Texas Attorney General’s Office explaining the legal ramifications of Janus and recommending a series of steps the state should take to ensure it is properly protecting its employees’ rights.

March 18

The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of community college employees Kristine Kurk and Dawn Woltkamp, respectively, arguing their union, the Los Rios Classified Employee Association (LRCEA) and the College District violated the First Amendment Rights of both women by requiring them to associate with an organization they did not support and pay dues to fund political speech with which they disagree.

March 27 The Freedom Foundation sends letters to the governors of all five states in which it operates calling for a temporary, three-month suspension of dues collected by government employee unions. Not surprisingly, unions were highly critical of any suggestion that they share the rest of the nation’s pain.

April 3

The Washington State Supreme Court denies Seattle’s bid to reinstate an income tax on wealthy households, declining to hear the city’s case and dealing a major blow to advocates for a statewide income tax. In a majority decision, the Supreme Court on declined to review the city’s request to overturn rulings against the tax by a King County Superior Court judge and the state Court of Appeals. The Freedom Foundation, representing a collection of Seattle residents affected by the proposed tax, was among the first to file a lawsuit challenging it.

April 7

The Freedom Foundation files six separate lawsuits against government unions, including five where they were caught red-handed forging the signatures of workers onto membership cards in order to continue collecting dues payments from people who don’t share the union’s ideals and only wish to be left alone. In all, that makes 12 forgery cases the Freedom Foundation has filed against public-sector unions — with more expected in the next few weeks.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 39

Non-Profit Organization U.S Postage

PAID

Olympia, WA Permit No. 462

PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 (360) 956-3482