A tax on big paychecks …

Washington’s private Economic Opportunity Institute, a liberal-leaning budget think tank, has done something that virtually no state politician dares: Propose an income tax.

Specifically, the group is suggesting a “high incomes tax” for Washingtonians. Under the plan, the state could afford to reduce some sales and property taxes while still netting hundreds of millions of dollars more each year for government services.

Here’s how it would work: Your first $100,000 a year ($200,000 for spouses filing jointly) would be exempt from the tax. In other words, 96 percent of the people in the state wouldn’t pay anything.

But couples earning $200,000 to $1 million would pay 3 percent of their earnings to the state. Those making more: 5 percent. The income tax would raise about $2.6 billion every two years.

With about half that new money, the group says, lawmakers could then either lower the state’s part of the sales tax from 6.5 percent to 6 percent. Or they could cut the state part of the property tax in half. Either way, state government would still have more than $1 billion more left for its two-year budget.

The income tax, however, would face a huge hurdle. It would likely require an amendment to the state constitution. That would mean winning approval from a super-majority of state lawmakers, then another thumbs-up from Washington voters.

Still, the group notes, “ the right mix of a high incomes tax, reduced general taxes, and dedication of revenues to popular new programs might win the popular vote.”

Among the early critics: the conservative-leaning Washington Policy Center.

“The first federal income tax started at 1% and only applied to the wealthiest 2% of people in the country,” wrote the group’s Paul Guppy. “… If you are among the 96% who wouldn’t get hit by the new tax at first, don’t get too comfortable. Once Olympia takes a drink from the new money pipeline, you can be sure they will start looking for ways to open the tap wider.”

If that won’t fly, how else could the state raise a few hundred million? After all, Washington faces an estimated $2.7 billion budget shortfall, starting next year.

Well, says the Economic Opportunity Institute, lawmakers could end tax breaks for things like soda-pop syrup, travel agents and insurance brokers.

Or the state could start charging sales tax on things that it doesn’t, like candy and gum or consumer services. After all, the group says, it makes little sense to tax movie rentals but not theater tickets, or to tax pet grooming products but not pet grooming services. Plus, it notes, the wealthy are more likely to buy the services.

When “Law and Order” meets “The Office”

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct has censured a Western Washington judge for “unseemly behavior.”

Former Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Colleen Hartl violated the code of judicial conduct, both sides agreed, when she had a sexual encounter with a public defender who appeared frequently in her court.

“Shortly after that,” the commission’s report says, “Respondent hosted a Friday night holiday party at her house, attended by several Federal Way Municipal Court employees. During the course of her party, Respondent became highly intoxicated and revealed the encounter to a group of court employees.”

On Monday, the judge called the commission to report the indiscretion, but said there had simply been “flirtation” between the two. According to the commission, she also phoned the court administrator to ask if court staff “would support that version.”

Hartl – who says that voicemail was in no way meant to induce anyone to be dishonest with the commission – resigned the following day.

“Respondent’s sudden departure, together with the foreseeable public dissemination of her admissions and unseemly behavior at her party, received considerable public notoriety and media attention and significantly disrupted the court’s operations,” the commission said.

In the stipulated agreement, Hartl agreed that the conduct violated the code of judicial conduct, which requires judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety. She also agreed not to serve as a judge again without the commission’s OK.

Vote for a ‘lesser evil’

Washington’s Faith and Freedom political action committee, a conservative Christian group, this week released its own long list of endorsements in state judicial races.

But unlike most such endorsements, which are typically cheerleading, group chairman Gary Randall makes it clear that he’s lukewarm on some of his picks:

“Tim Bradshaw appears to be the lesser of the three evils … George Appel appears to be the lesser of the three evils … He is the lesser of the two evils … He appears to be the lesser of the evils.”

Randall said he was loath to make those kinds of endorsements, but felt he had little choice from the field of candidates.

“This personal research has once again pointed out that people of faith and conservatives have much work to do in recruiting and electing qualified candidates who reflect our beliefs,” he wrote.

Why endorsements are rarely news:

The Association of Washington Business recently announced its “automatic endorsements” for incumbent lawmakers, based on their voting records.

All 35 lawmakers listed had something in common: Every single one is a Republican.

Then, this week, Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington – yes, the exclamation point is in the middle of the group’s name – issued its endorsements.

Of the 76 legislative candidates and incumbents listed, every one is a Democrat. In some crowded races, in fact, the group endorsed two Democrats.