Thanks for the numbers, which are enlightening indeed. The state employees have become a scapegoat, a group for the GOP to demonize in order to obtain political advantage. I also wonder, do these numbers take into account the impact of the state additional financial stress on its workforce, or reducing the state's ability to attract talent?

My plea is to reject the siren's call of easy fixes and scapegoats, and instead recognize that we have to choose a combination of two unattractive alternatives: tax increases and service cuts. I don't want to minimize the costs associated with tax increases, as Washingtonians of all income levels have already been stressed by the recession. I think that the governor has a reasonable balance between the two in her budget. I would be more willing to take GOP suggestions more seriously if they were predicated on realistic numbers.

Republicans have little incentive to offer "realistic"--in the subjective, Democratic Party sense, naturally--suggestions. They can amass more political points opposing policies their constituents oppose, than attempting to influence policy that their constituents will still oppose--political survival being an imperative. In general, those who oppose wage increases make certain assumptions lost on the author, who fixates on the size of scheduled wage increases relative to the State budget deficit. I see little here to support tax increases.

I only wish that the Governor had missed the mark on her "We have no deficit" projections by as much as the Republicans supposedly missed their wage increase impact projections in terms of real dollars.

Where was the thoughtful analysis of the deficit by the OFM during the last Governors race? Was it that the Governor wasn't told by the OFM of the projected deficit? Or that she chose to ignore the facts and lie during the campaign?

I would think that even modest savings are worth pursuing. Are you arguing that the State workforce would abandon their jobs for other employment if these terms were to be renegotiated? does not seem likely.

From Evergreen Freedom Foundation's blog:

"In Crosscut’s recent article on the overstated natured of employee benefit savings when it comes to dealing with the state’s $2.6 billion deficit, we (as in the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) couldn’t help but notice that the Office of Financial Management might be playing down savings—at least when it comes to health care premiums.

In the article, OFM Communications Director Glenn Kuper is on record as saying that even if the state did renegotiate its premium share down from 88 percent to 80 percent, the total savings would be $48 million. What the article doesn’t say, however, is that reflects only six months of savings. That estimate is based on the assumption that plans wouldn’t be changed until January 2011, leaving only six months of savings. The Crosscut article also doesn’t mention that savings would be closer to $200 million for an entire biennium. That could come in handy in closing the projected $2.8 billion deficit for the fast-approaching 2011-12 budget.

It also appears that OFM hasn’t exactly been forthright with us, in terms of getting us requested information in a timely matter. You’ll notice the Crosscut article is dated January 15. Meanwhile, we requested the same health care premium information (among other queries) from Kuper on January 6, and he just got back to us today (January 18). Is it a coincidence that the Crosscut writer who got the information early is sympathetic to the governor’s view that the contracts needn’t be changed? Perhaps.

A lot of private sector employers, it’s worth noting, only pick up two-thirds or so of health care premium shares. So, who’s to say state workers should be limited to paying 20 percent of their health care premium shares? The state could save a lot more money by having public employees pay in excess of 20 percent of their premiums and that would still be in line with the private sector."

http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1842

For the record, when I called Kuper for that cost information last week, I had never talked to him before and he had never talked to me. Kuper did not know my views on the governor's position, and frankly I had no view. I simply wanted to find out how much the Republican proposals to eliminate step-pay increases and reduce health benefits would save. I simply told him I was a reporter, and he got me the information I sought within a couple of hours.

I checked with Kuper this morning, and bthornton is correct that the $48 million represents six months of savings in the second biennium, since the new premium split likely wouldn't go into effect until Jan. 1, 2011, the start of the next insurance year. The state has the immediate problem of closing a $2.6 billion budget deficit for the second year of the biennium. Eliminating the step-pay increases would only save $6.6 million of that total, and increasing the employee premium share would save $48 million or less. As I asked in my original article, are GOP lawmakers going to detail their own dollars-and-cents proposals for closing the rest of the $2.55 billion deficit without new revenues? bthornton doesn't address that.

This piece was very helpful in putting to bed one of the major Republican talking points. Their major message is and has been: don't raise taxes on people or businesses. We know that includes rescinding tax exemptions that haven't lived up to their promises. The biggest of these, and the largest tax break ever given by any state is the $3.2 billion over 20 years given to Boeing in 2003 in exchange for their promise to keep the 1,200 Dreamliner jobs in the state. Obviously, they did not keep their end of the deal, and we should "clawback" our money, as other states have in similar circumstances.

There are 567 tax exemptions and preferences. Only one minor one was eliminated last year. Repealing them could fill the deficit twice over. The Legislature should eliminate all the non-performing tax breaks ASAP. From here on, we should require an annual performance report and automatic elimination (sunsetting) after 10 years, unless results continue to be proven. This would eliminate the lobbying bottleneck in trying to eliminate them one by one. Instead, vote on a package to renew, like a "base closure" commission. This year, the Dems should set a goal for revenue raised by eliminating tax exemptions. Keep going until the goal is met, starting with the largest first.

The Republican leadership is standing firm on its “no new revenue, just cut state jobs and pay” message. They stand for “smaller government” on principle. Why is this a value? Shouldn’t government be based on needs, on the kind of community we want and the kind of jobs we want to encourage? I have yet to see any proof that privatizing government services saves money or improves services. The opposite is true. Taking 10% (or more) in profit squeezes pay and benefits. Workers’ pay goes down. We’ve seen exposés on privatized prisons and private charter schools. Promises and contracts broken. Greed institutionalized.

The Republican claim that raising taxes automatically costs jobs is disproven. Yes, we need jobs, but 70% of new jobs come from start-ups, not “small businesses” employing up to 500 people. Where is a major credit-expanding initiative? Where are micro-loans? Where is a state commercial bank? Where is a volunteer corps of retired executives to volunteer as consultants? Where are the tax-free regional incubators for start-ups? Where is a fund to subsidize rents for local start-ups in vacant storefronts for five years? The Republican agenda is lacking in creativity and initiative. It’s a “No” agenda. Democrats should step in and say “Yes” to entrepreneurs.

The Democratic vision is one of community, of all of us paying our fair share of taxes, the wealthiest carrying a greater burden that the poor because they have extra resources. We agree to maintain health care as a right, a safety net for people with disabilities who can’t work, a child welfare system that is adequately staffed and schools that start at pre-K and go beyond high school to help all children get the education they need to succeed. We value clean air, water and soil and a roof over everyone’s head. We ask, what is the cost of a living in a good place, and how do we equitably pay for it?

We have a service economy, yet we haven't modernized our sales tax to include services. A sales tax on services from lawyers, engineers, detectives and other professionals might raise $834 million, while similar taxes on security brokers, credit agencies, insurers and the like could raise an additional $322 million. But those have not garnered public supporters. This is $1.16 billion. Extending sales tax to all services would raise at least half of the projected deficit and would be a structural correction, not a one-time fix. It would be progressive, in that services are skewed toward higher-income earners.

Sarajane Siegfriedt, co-chair
King County Democrats Legislative Action Committee

Gee Sarajane wasn't it the Democrat County Executive that cut the funding to Senior Centers and food banks?

From the story:

The Democratic vision is one of community, of all of us paying our fair share of taxes, the wealthiest carrying a greater burden that the poor because they have extra resources. We agree to maintain health care as a right, a safety net for people with disabilities who can’t work, a child welfare system that is adequately staffed and schools that start at pre-K and go beyond high school to help all children get the education they need to succeed

You party's actions speak louder than you pious words. Don't forget Dow's foot ferry has a budget of 21 million and takes in 1.065 in fares. What a great redundant, service and new entitlement you have developed in Dow's old district on the bakc of the eledrly, poor and most needy among us.

Obviously that should read "Your party's actions.." and "on the backs of the elderly...".