Kate Riley explains how that happened — and who is to blame:
Gov. Chris Gregoire took umbrage at the audacious overture her Idaho counterpart made recently to Washington businesses, inviting them to pick up and move across the border. In a news conference, she feistily asserted Idaho has nothing on Washington.
But just two years ago, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter easily lassoed a $3 billion plant that would have brought as many as 400 permanent jobs to the Tri-City area in Southeastern Washington — right out from under Gregoire's nose. People close to the deal said the project was Washington's to lose — and place the blame squarely on Gregoire.
. . .
But Gregoire let a big one get away. The company was the nuclear giant Areva and the project was a uranium-enrichment plant that prepares uranium to be made into nuclear fuel. It would have complemented Areva's existing Tri-City fuel-fabrication plant, which provides fuel to 25 percent of the nation's 104 electricity-producing reactors.
Riley is not sure why Gregoire failed to fight for the plant, but suspects that Gregoire was opposed to nuclear power, and hence to the plant. It was an election year and Gregoire may not have wanted to irritate the Greens, who in this state, as elsewhere, generally have a superstitious fear of nuclear power. And the Greens are an important voting bloc, especially for Democrats.
(Gregoire now claims to be in favor of nuclear power.)
Most likely Gregoire didn't back the plant because she doesn't like nuclear power, and because she knew that many of her supporters hate and fear it.
Her decision, or, if you prefer, her non-decision, is instructive in many ways. It illustrates, once again, the opposition to sound science on some subjects in the Democratic party. It shows the reluctance of leading Democrats, who once were proud to represent working men, to accept proposals to create jobs — if those jobs are politically incorrect. (It is no accident that Texas, where the Republican party has been gaining for decades and political correctness is weak, creates so many jobs.) It shows the indifference of many Democrats to jobs in areas outside the party's urban core. (In this area, Democrats often oppose jobs even in the exurbs.)
Above all, it shows a failure to think rationally about problems. (Some would say that Gregoire's budgets suffer from the same defect.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(On one point, Riley and I disagree, mildly. She describes Barack Obama as "pronuclear". I have been trying for several years to figure out what his position is on nuclear power, and am still undecided. In 2008, I analyzed his record and his platform and concluded that he was for nuclear power in principle, but against it in practice. Like many other Democratic politicians, Obama said — and may have believed — that nuclear waste was an unsolved problem.
When a political candidate uses nuclear waste to object to nuclear power, they reveal one of two things about themselves: Either the candidate does not understand the science — which is not that difficult to grasp — or the candidate is a demagogue who does not care about the scientific facts. But the position is enormously convenient for a candidate who wants to appear reasonable about nuclear power, while blocking it in practice. (But not, and this is important, closing any current nuclear power plants.)
Since he took office, Obama has blown hot and cold on nuclear power, working to close the Yucca Mountain waste depository and backing financial guarantees for several new power plants. (There's an interesting contrast between Obama and his predecessor on the Yucca depository. Bush said that he would follow scientific advice on the facility, and did. Obama promised to close it, even though the majority of nuclear scientists have backed it for years.) As so often happens with Obama, we are left wondering what, if anything, he actually believes. Given this ambiguity, I wouldn't call him "pronuclear". (Incidentally, yesterday's Seattle Times had a fine article on the decision to close Yucca.))
Posted by Jim Miller at March 30, 2010 10:47 AM | Email ThisScientists and the environmentalists are at odds with each other. Science has answers to protect and preserve our environment, a well as improve the quality of air and water and manage our natural resources in perpetuity, ensuring we have polar bears and grizzly bears and wild wolves and deer and such, all the while balancing it with the needs of the people to provide for themselves.
The environmentalists are completely devoid of science, overtaken by fear and other primitive emotions. Any science an environmentalist uses is likely misquoted or dubious at best.
There are those out there who have the ability to think logically and also care for the environment. These people, surprisingly, make up a large percentage of our population. You won't find any of these in the environmental movement, however. Or if they are there, they are a very suppressed minority.
If you sit down the average American and explain to them the actual science behind the environment, then you will see the vast majority of them will enthusiastically endorse the positions that scientists tend to take on the environment. This includes the building of nuclear power plants and the management of wilderness with sound scientific principles.
On the other hand, if you try to feed the public the ideas that the environmental movement feeds them, they smell a rat, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on March 30, 2010 12:51 PMIf I have a business (lets use a farming biz), where gross revenues is $2 million. Washington will expect you to pay $40,000 (after new tax hike coming) right off the top. But in Idaho, I then can deduct all Costs of Goods, Property costs, employment costs, and everything bit of extra stuff that is used to do business. Let's say that NET revenue is $150,000... In Idaho, i now owe $11,400.
I would say that paying Idaho's (7.6%) corporate tax resulting in a $11,400 tax is much better that Washington's (2.0%) B&O tax rusulting in $40,000 is much better.
Don't you agree?
Posted by: John on March 30, 2010 12:54 PMAs to why the Greens are against nuclear power... the Greens are against anything that makes life better. They don't care about science. They care are Marxism.
Stupid liberals (but I repeat myself) screw things up again.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 30, 2010 02:10 PMEncapsulation is a brilliant way to store nuclear waste. It essentially stores all waste in pebble form that is surrounded by a glass composite shell which blocks all radiation and is unbreakable. I saw a picture at the time showing a engineer holding a pebble in his hand. Absolutely amazing!
20-year old technology and we are still arguing about how to store it. Now we have companies building miniture nuclear power plants that are just 6 feet tall (http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/). But, even with this clean power opportunities - we are still going to be stuck in the stone age, burning coal and hoping that the Sun will shine.
Posted by: John on March 30, 2010 02:27 PMAnd it's all going to be replaced by cheap wind and solar anyhow, right. LOL.
Good for Idaho, they deserve the business.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 30, 2010 02:57 PMJohn, you are sadly misinformed. I hope you don't do your own taxes.
In your example, you could deduct the $1560 from your federal taxable income, but that would not reduce your federal tax by $1560. The reduction in federal tax would by $1560 X your marginal tax rate. If your example is for a married person, that tax rate is %15 -- so he'd pay $1560 to Idaho but save $234 to the feds. In other words, he'd pay $1326 more combined income tax than if he lived in Washington.
I point this out because posters here frequently claim that having a personal income tax in Washington would drive businesses to states without personal income tax. This clearly wasn't the case for Jim Miller's example.
PS: You appear to be equally ignorant of Washington state taxes that apply to farming, but you'll have to do your own research on that.
Posted by: scottd on March 30, 2010 02:58 PMNope. Becoming the Soviet Socialist State of Washington will do a fine job of driving business away.
Almost everything costs less there. And a much lower cost tax structure is why.
You and the other fringers would just add personal and corporate income taxes in addition to the idiotically high taxes and minimum wage you advocate now.
Soon,we will become the California of the West. Dramatically overtaxed (The idiocy of increasing taxes in the midst of a horrific recession is self-evident) and there will be a general evacuation out of those states... like ours... which choose to mirror the socialist democratic centralism of California... much like the businesses evacuating that state.
It's bizarre that leftists can't seem to get these simple concepts. But as they become increasingly unemployed as a result of their lemming-like advocacy for massive government, maybe then, they'll get it.
Posted by: Hinton on March 30, 2010 03:35 PMSoon,we will become the California of the West.
Teh leftists are crazy,
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 30, 2010 04:38 PMIt saves him the trouble of coming up with facts to support his argument. Or, he could follow John and just make them up.
Posted by: scottd on March 30, 2010 04:42 PMThe Bellevue, WA firm, Intellectual Ventures, is in the process of productizing such reactors.
Amazingly, Intellectual Ventures decided to locate in WA. Funny how they didn't realize how bad it sucks here.
So, do you now understand that your comment @4 on March 30, 2010 12:54 PM is absolutely ridiculous?
And assuming you do, how does knowing the truth about the difference between WA and ID tax influence your thinking?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 30, 2010 05:29 PMBut to be clear, despite your perception of WA's tax structure and its perceived negative impact upon you as a business owner, you have at no time invested any money in making a move to a state with a different tax structure that you prefer.
Interesting.
Then check with your CPA so he can set you straight regarding your silly comment @4. Once you learn how it works, maybe you can post an update.
While you are at it, ask him about B&O tax rates paid by manufacturing businesses (like Areva). Here's a hint, it's not 2% or even 1.5%.
I have little interest in farming, though my in-laws owned a farm. In Idaho, as it turns out. Still -- you were the one who brought it up.
Glad to note that you prefer an income tax over B&O. I tend to agree, although my own taxes would definitely be higher.
Posted by: scottd on March 30, 2010 06:00 PM
'Climategate' scientists didn't manipulate data: lawmakers
In the first official report into the theft of emails from the unit last year, a British parliamentary committee said the messages did not contradict the mainstream scientific view that man-made emissions have contributed to rising temperatures."The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," the report said. "We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus."
The committee found nothing sinister in Prof. Jones' use of the words "hide the decline" and "trick" in two emails about temperature changes that attracted the most public attention
Prof. Jones opines to the contrary. He also follows the money and is tainted, so I don't trust him no matter what is so-called credentials are.
Posted by: KDS on March 30, 2010 07:16 PMWhile you are at it, ask him about B&O tax rates paid by manufacturing businesses (like Areva). Here's a hint, it's not 2% or even 1.5%.
Yes, that was one of the things that caused me to shut down my business in WA (which employed 5 engineers and two dozen other people) - the way the State capriciously decided B&O tax classification.
I designed, manufactured, and sold consumer audio products for 7 years. When I set up my business, my lawyer (20 years as a business attorney in the State of WA) wrote the State DOR for a classification recommendation: service (because we design), manufacturer (because we build), or warehouse (because we store and sell). DOR decided it was manufacturing, so we that is how we filed.
Fast-forward 7 years. DOR audit, auditor decides we should have been service, since the value wasn't added at manufacturing (State's justification: it could be built anywhere, even in China) but by the brainpower that did the design, so we were now liable for 5 years (Statute of limitations) of back B&O tax AND penalties AND interest, never mind we had a written statement from the DOR stating otherwise.
Took it to preliminary hearings, and it was plainly obvious that it wasn't going to go away; the State can change its mind when it wants and there is no recourse.
Add in the fact that the State - capriciously, again - decided that a client's sales tax exemption form was invalid (he bought lots of product from us, installed it into systems, and his exclusive market was Asia) and thus I was liable for uncollected sales tax, not my client for what they called a fraudulently filed exemption form.
Those two issues were enough for me. I shut down the business, found most of my employees jobs elsewhere (some out-of-State), and moved, changing from Edmonds Dan to Shanghai Dan.
The State uses B&O as a club; my recommendation to any and all manufacturers in the State of WA is to go ahead and file at the highest B&O tax rate possible (soon to be 2%) because anything less leaves you open to the State deciding otherwise, and that's just a battle you don't want to fight...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 30, 2010 07:35 PMhaha, that's like saying " The journalistic reputation of Jason Blair and the NY Times remains intact..."
Thanks for the laugh Mike BS.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 30, 2010 09:28 PMhttp://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/BAndOTax/BandOrates.aspx
Posted by: Robert on March 30, 2010 10:17 PMFor example, re the B&O classification, the DOR issues binding rulings in response to requests. I don't know how they define "binding" but presumably the letter would not apply if you'd misled them or the nature of your business changed since it was issued. Also, their website says that if your business performs more than one type of activity, it may have to pay taxes in multiple classifications.
As for the sales tax exemption, I believe the vendor is only liable if they knew that the certificate was fraudulent.
To be clear, I don't know the facts and there's no point in retrying your case on this board. I'm in no way accusing you of doing anything wrong. Maybe our tax authorities need to be more customer-friendly. But of course that doesn't mean taxes should go down -- just that they should be administered fairly.
Posted by: Bruce on March 30, 2010 10:24 PMWow. The MSM hung an entire (non)story on an anonymous source, and some people still believed it. Looks like some people will always get punked by the MSM.
And, strangely enough, the editorial -- it's not a news article -- doesn't give the number of new jobs in Idaho which resulted. I thought jobs were the point of this piece?
Well, it's not like the editorial described existing WA state jobs which went to Idaho.
Posted by: tensor on March 30, 2010 11:33 PMUnfortunately, in the State of WA having the DOR issue a finding/recommendation about classification is not binding, and the Government can change the classification on you. I'd have no problem with that, but the retroactive classification - and interest and penalties for following their recommendation - is beyond the pale.
As far as sales tax exemptions, you have to prove you didn't know it was fraudulent. The onus is upon the business owner to prove their innocence, rather than the DOR to prove their guilt. Of course I knew my client was buying product and selling it out-of-State; that's completely legal and he didn't have to charge sales tax (he was a tax attorney for 25 years before he 'retired' and got involved in consumer audio). But the State saw otherwise, so my business and bank account was affected.
It's been something consistent with all arms of revenue of the Government - Federal, State, and local. You are presumed guilty until you prove your innocence to their satisfaction. It should be up to them to prove otherwise. But no, you will get slammed with levies and liens until you prove your case, and unless you have resources beyond those that are now locked up, good luck raising the funds to defend yourself.
I'm doing my business taxes right now, for China and Hong Kong, and compared to the hoops and crap I had to do in the US this is a breeze. A PNL, balance sheet, and a signed statement from my CPA is all that's needed. If the Government here thinks there's an error, then they ask for more information. It's actually illegal - Constitutionally so - for the tax departments here to lien or levy WITHOUT a court judgment that you actually owe.
I always thought a man was innocent until proven guilty; who would believe I'd have to go to "Communist China" to see that is really the case...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 31, 2010 12:18 AMNot from what I read on it. It's still using uranium based reactors, but using depleted uranium. Not thorium.
Posted by: Palouse on March 31, 2010 08:41 AMGregoire is being very shortsited if she's fighting against this..the nuclear industry can create lots of highly skilled, high paying jobs in this state. Of course, most people who take those jobs wouldn't want to live in Idaho. Its got beautiful scenary, don't get me wrong, but its rather devoid of the art, culture and diversity that we enjoy here.
Posted by: Proteus on March 31, 2010 09:44 AMObviously you have not been there lately. For starters, many people live there because it is a fantastic outdoor playground, and you can do outdoor activities a lot more often there, than here, like during the torrential downpours of the past few days. One man's beauty is not another man's. As for culture and art, sure it does not have the same number of museums, theaters, etc. as Seattle, but it's also a lot smaller population. For its size, it is plenty filled with art and culture, and without the massive traffic.
Diversity is just a buzzword.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 31, 2010 10:05 AMSo now we have proof that the corruption of government that led them to fund all this man-made climate BS has also led to some corrupt judiciary.
Read the emails in question and it's pretty obvious these people had a political agenda and were not objective scientists. Some of us are smart enough to understand that certain cases are steered to certain judges so that political cover can be obtained.
Posted by: johnny on April 1, 2010 08:19 AMPosted by: Duffman on March 30, 2010 01:04 PM
spot on Duff. washington state has to change its views on taxation of business lest it become california. now that is depressing.
i just came back from a visit to relatives in california. everything is dead. outside of silicon valley and agriculture (which the Federal Gov't is killing with insane water irrigation policies) california is going down.
the last auto mnf has left the state taking 4400 good paying jobs.
talking with business type relatives i can't get anyone to be positive about california.
Posted by: puget sound on April 3, 2010 08:52 AM