Well, we can start with eliminating the low hanging fruit like this.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-decries-waste-fraud-in-apf-3701895335.html?x=0&.v=26

That's 100 Billion a year that we know about, or think we know about at the Federal level. In the State of Washington, the State Auditor says it's as much as 100 Million just in unauthorized benefits and services for "Undocumented People" in just one program.

Sad thing is, Prof. Sell, today there are people out there who will take you seriously.

The best "way back" would be to reduce the State growth of Union employees and other new hires back to 2004 levels.

Oh, we can cut from "higher ed". Take the UW's new College of the Environment. With the appointment of David Dicks, that has been illuminated as nothing but a political organization. Cut it. I suspect there are many more examples, but there is one.

Right - BlueLight says the UW's new College of the Environment "is nothing but a political organization." That would be a political organization comprised of the following UW core units: The School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, the School of Forest Resources, the School of Oceanography, and several others. BlueLight is obviously smarter than the rest of us, who assumed those units were core academic departments involved in basic science education. Thank you for enlightening us...

All public employees pay 100% of their health insurance premiums and costs. Problem solved.

prisons are big business, however you might simply wall off wall street, say at fulton street in downtown manhattan, and only allow the secretaries and house cleaners in and out, and declare the wall street distric one big prison, marital visits allowed, and the country might just cheer!

http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

You're welcomed, CP. At a time when the university system is being priced out of reach for the average taxpayer, the last thing it should be doing is adding colleges and salaries for political appointees/operatives. Those colleges you cite will do well to keep to their own and not allow political agenda to taint them, as well.

I think DSHS consumes something like 35% of the state budget. You say most of this is mandated or matching funds that enable federal subsidies (well, the feds have a lot of money, no problem there). But, given the proportion of DSHS to total state spending I think it deserves more than one sentence in your analysis. I have seen graphs that show the growth of DSHS spending over several decades; it is a sobering picture. I think the argument can be made that there is virtually no limit to the desirable and valuable things government can do yet we simply cannot do all of them. So we make choices.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Fact or Opinion?: Public sector employees earn more than private sector employees doing similar work.

See http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7bA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7d/uploads/%7b03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7d.PDF:

Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years
Keith A. Bender and John S. Heywood
April 2010

Excerpt from Executive Summary:

The analysis finds that:

Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector.

Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.

Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.

Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector.

State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

I can give you three examples right now of government programs that could be cut without me complaining:

1. Don't build the mercer street project. It won't effect traffic flow and even if it will make it a nicer area it isn't worth $150million (at least not now).

2. Don't build the deep bore tunnel. Not building the deepbore tunnel would save about $900million if a surface street option was chosen or about $3.5billion if a renovation option was chosen. Those numbers over the lifetime of the project about 5 years come out to $180million and $700million respectively. That is serious money that, particularly the $700million figure could be better spent plugging the gap or on improving schools.

3. Don't build streetcars or light rail (or reduce construction significantly). Most all modern U.S. rapid (rail) transit systems (post WWII) have had an insignificant impact on growth patterns in the area. If 2+million people are expected to come to the region in the next 30-40 years, will light rail really save people from increased congestion? Not likely. Only zoning changes and significant investments to build up will change things not billions and billions of dollars on exalted buses.

To elaborate on this: if the city has to be built up (instead of out) in order to deal with population growth then the best place the densify is around areas that are already dense (like downtown) for two reasons. First, these areas are fertile for more dense growth because they are already walkable. And second, it is easier to provide government services, like buses for example, in dense areas because distances are shorter and there is a critical mass of people to make services financially efficient.

Government programs fall into two categories: dealing with today (maintenance and upkeep, parks, welfare, transit etc.) and investing in tomorrow (education, capital projects, building light rail, modifying zoning laws etc.). It is important to pick, investments wisely and in my opinion, there is no better investment than education in terms of ethics, long term economic welfare, or long term, social well being. This will improve communities more than a nice, but costly train.

To address your article more directly, while people do want to have their cake and eat it to (less taxes for more services), there is also wasteful spending in government. And until politicians get serious, and potentially radical, about which investments they chose to make (and we get rid of the noxious referendum process that created the SoundTransit money drain) there won't be real budget reform and people will continue to complain.

A nice Swiftian piece, Prof. Sell, and rejoinder to those who think one can solve a public policy problem with an ideological solution ("less government!" "live within your means!" etc.). As much as I decry the specifics of Eyman's initiatives, at least he's adopted the socialist position that democratic government should be making economic decisions and not let the market make them. It was, indeed, the deregulated market (loosey-goosey sub-prime loans) that got us into this current mess and it will not be the deregulated market that gets us out of it. Furthermore, it was not over spending by the state government (health care for the poor, k-12, and higher education are chronically underfunded in Washington) but under-taxation that has caused this problem. Forcing the poor and vulnerable to tighten their belts while the rich let theirs out at the public trough is morally obscene.

"It was, indeed, the deregulated market (loosey-goosey sub-prime loans) that got us into this current mess..."

Deregulated? I thought lenders were pushed in that direction by a federal government seeking social equity for those who couldn't really afford it.

"BlueLight"

"lenders were pushed in that direction by a federal government seeking social equity for those who couldn't really afford it"

Nope: that's the Fox "news" spin on it.

The truth is that the lenders made a ton of money in fees. Packaged and sold the loans so that the lenders didn't expose themselves to the risk of default. Trouble is they bought insurance from a firm that couldn't cover it's risk. (AIG) So first the insurance firm blew up which the tax payers have bailed out.

Then the Fed's nationalized the two biggest holders of the bonds, Freddy & Fannie.

Now it turns out that the lenders after selling the mortgages shredded the docs and transfered the records to a company in electronic form. Trouble is that wasn't legal. They didn't transfer the titles in the local county court records. So the bond holders hold nothing and the bank no longer has the records.

An in fact they way they cut those bonds into trenches of risk they couldn't know who would hold what mortgage. Because once one blows up, the that one goes to the highest risk trench. But until it happens they didn't know which one it would be.

So when a mortgage blows up the bank tries to foreclose, but in reality it's the bond holder who has the rights to do this. But to cover the fraud of not transfering the title in the first place the banks commit a second fraud and gin up papers saying they own'd it all along. Can't be both ways.

And to double their trouble the bond holders are suing to unwind the sales because the bonds aren't worth what the holders paid for them.

When this all unwinds as it will the 20 big banks will be bankrupt. And should be placed into receivership. The sooner this happens and the less bonuses paid to these crooks the better.

Don't underestimate, or ignore, the government's role in the mess, Gary. (It isn't just a Fox News fabrication).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html

Trouble is the wsj is another Murdock publication, ie paper version of Fox.

The cr*p about bad loans being forced on the banks is hogwash. The banks made a ton of money once they realized they weren't on the hook for bad loans. Greed & Fraud, pure and simple.

Greed and fraud. Do you think the government is incapable of those?

I don't get this. Republicans haven't controlled the state in decades. it's been 1-party rule since 1984 right? So why is the GOP even mentioned in this article?

BlueLight - no no only bureaucrats in non-government entities are prone to greed & fraud. Government bureaucrats and executives are high-minded, self-righteous people who only have the public's interests at heart. They're a better brand of human.

Wow. One professor writes an opinion piece in the wall street journal in 2008 stating that he doesn't know anything for sure but the government may be partially at fault. I suppose that means that the Government is to blame for Wa Mu, AIG, Lehman Brothers, mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps, Goldman Sachs creating garbage bonds intended to fail so that their clients could take out derivatives against them. The policy goal of increasing home ownership for low income and minority people must have led directly to adjustable rate mortgages, liars loans, no-income no-job loans, drive by home inspections. It must have also caused the Bond Rating agencies to systematically lie about the worth of bonds and mortgage backed securities.

Yes, this professor is an economist, and also works at a think tank. Think tanks are always right.

1) Read Warren Buffet's op-ed piece today in the New York times;
2) That government can be corrupted, or, at the very least, distorted is true, but it's always by the economic elites who want you all to themselves--e.g., the opposition to I-1107 was wholly funded by the American Beverage Association which doesn't give a tinker's dam about the health or education of the citizens of Washington; don't get me started with the parasitical cigarette industry;
3) Alex, you're right. Government employees are, indeed, better folks. This has been substantially documented by research on Public Service Motivation and confirmed by Dick Nelson's post. They are not saints and government isn't perfect, but they are us--ordinary folks at mostly ordinary wages doing their best. To continually attack this particular group (picking out isolated examples) and not, say the bankers and brokers and sickly rich CEOs like Balmer or Bezos or the Blethens and Nordstroms, speaks to a distorted sense of moral or ethical priorities or understanding of responsibility in our community.

I rather like my government especially at about midnight when they are running up and down the road plowing snow and sanding and i am asleep. I like them when they are fixing my roads and patrolling the streets. Like them when I had a college to attend and thought I had a future and could trust my banker. Did I go out and buy a McMansion I couldn't afford no matter how stupid the banker was or thought I was. No, I know my limits. I also voted for the tax on sugar and pop as it was a dinky little thing we could all afford or do with out. And if I like my services I think I need to pay for them. Ol' Dino likes small government but I bet he hasn't fixed a pot hole in front of his house in years. or painted the white lines. If you want it you gotta pay for it. If you don't want it send the government man away or don't use them. I do see roads with owner maintained signs on them That is what we all have to do. I am afraid this not a black and white issue. You can even read studies where the prison system is screwed up and we could turn about half loose and save bundles. You first!

Is there something wrong with citing the Professor Sell will work Full Time at Highline College to earn the same amount of money that David Dicks will earn for a three day a week, make-work job at the UW's College of the Environment ? It certainly is an example of how blatantly connections and privilege are rewarded over merit in the Public Sector.

How many other David Dicks are there in government? Why is the public so afraid to demand accountability for the funds already being expended?

An example of Dr. Smith's concerns could be suggested by the recent King County budget discussions which had Councilmember Dunn walking out of the proceedings in an apparent fit of pique because the King County Sheriff's office was going to be required to reduce its staffing and patrols in non-incorportated King County due to county revenue shortfalls. While many King County employee groups had reduced or held their pay static during this current, and likely ongoing revenue shortfall, the deputies working in the King County Sheriff's office would not reduce or eliminate a five percent pay increase which they had negotiated to recieve from the county. Not only has this become a case of what Dr Smith cites as "If you want it you gotta pay for it", but it does call into question how much we should be be paying for the services we deem to be needed or desirable. Unfortunately, it is very likely that revenue shortfalls will continue to plague the state, King County and the municipalities in the coming qusrters. As Dr. Smith points out, there are not going to be easy solutions.

Those who think government is incapable of the "greed and fraud" mentioned above should ask themselves why SEIU is one of the most vocal critics of Christine Gregoire's recent moratorium on agency rule-making.

bkochis -

"Government employees are, indeed, better folks."

Really? Instead, of course, for the inconvenient facts that they do not have to respond to market pressures. They do not have to worry about the risk that their employer may have lower revenue than the employer had hoped. (Don't get me started on "lower" revenue. That doesn't happen.)

They get pensions that are not available in the private sector. They get job security that is not based on merit, but instead on seniority. They don't have to pay shares of health and similar benefits that are comparable to those in the private sector. Their salaries are higher than those of comparable people in the private sector.

Do you know what is broken? The fact that our governor has never taken a paycheck from an employer that is NOT the government. How in the world can she understand the private sector if she has never been a part of it?

Here's an idea --- create a level of state employee above which requires no less than 10 years experience in the private sector. That would solve a lot of the problems we have in this state.

PJS Wrote:
"They do not have to worry about the risk that their employer may have lower revenue than the employer had hoped. (Don't get me started on "lower" revenue. That doesn't happen.)"

Actually it does, PJS. If you had read my reply above regrading the King County Council and funding for the KC Sheriff Dept.or had followed its recent reporting in the news, you would see that revenues do impact job security.

Bella - thanks. So those folks subject to that have the same worries.

Have they had the same effect? Same wage and benefit reductions as the rest of private sector America? Like me?

PJS,
I can't, for the life of me, understand why you use the private sector as your benchmark of how people ought to work. I fear you have bought into the myth that markets are natural facts like the laws of thermodynamics and are the most efficient form of employment. Markets and the "private sector" fail all the time and to cover their butts they lobby to change the rules and mount massive campaigns to blame government (again, the American Beverage Association is a case in point). Not only were 800 employees of the UW laid off last year (with more to follow this year in the face of maybe a 20% cut) or today's prison lockdowns while employees take unpaid furloughs, but you fail to evaluate how many cannot be hired to do the work that actually needs doing (e.g., to reduce class size that has consistently been shown to improve education--a constitutional mandate in the state of Washington). The private sector is enormously inefficient (just think of the obscene salaries for CEOs of failed companies; think of Enron, of AIG, of the bankers and brokers who made out like bandits in this downturn) or think of what the private sector has cost us now with the recession that it, not the government, brought on.
That people have decent wages, benefits, and pensions should be the norm that we call for in the private sector not try and deny in the public sector.

From that ultimate ultimate authority of late night, Charlie Rose last night: "All the Devil are Here," McLean & Nocera. The less liberal might be more interested in the one cited in the IBD this morning: the forthcoming: "The Great American Bank Robbery , the Unauthorized Report about what Really Caused the Great Recession," Paul Sperry. I aim to please.

bkochis Wrote:
"That people have decent wages, benefits, and pensions should be the norm that we call for in the private sector not try and deny in the public sector."

That is an interesting proposition. A business generally gives the greatest benefits to those who provide the greatest benefits to the business. If the business doesn't provide that compensation, the employee can leave and offer their talent and abilities to a different, more generous employer. At what point is a pension required to be paid to the employee, and who should decide if that employee should receive a pension? What if they are a uninspired or lazy employee? Pensions are directed investments in a company's human capital, and I am having a very hard time trying to justify a universal application.

In the case of the King County deputies, their five-percent increase in pay was to make their pay comparable to other police agencies. Was a pay increase necessary, and is it not possible for King County deputies to apply for higher paying jobs in other policing agencies if they are not satisfied with their pay? If they do have the opportunity to search for more profitable employment, why would it be necessary to offer a universal pension to all the deputies? Wouldn't be better to offer a pension
to the deputy (or state, county, local employee) when the talents and
abilities of the person warrents making that investment?

I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to come to an understanding what should be considered fair to the employee or employer be it public or private.

While I agree with your points, I must ask...What are your sources for these statistics you fling around? Texas has the highest rate of poverty? Not in any survey I can find. Mississippi has that with a running start. Please cite when you throw out inflamitory statistics.

All the nit-pickers about this article are missing the point. We, the people, want and demand services but simply don't want to pay for them. We, the people, refused to approve a state income tax on the wealthiest which would have at least been a start to get us out of a hole. The tired and cynical GOP buzzwords about fraud and waste are designed to distract people into imagining that making tiny chops here and there are going to make any difference. We're going to have to pay for what our society offers us, later if not now. Life is not free. Sadly, as my friend often says, "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die."

Thanks, Bella, for your thoughtful comments. My short take is that we need to work toward a goal of employment that, first, meets the needs of citizens and secondly the desires of citizens. We should focus on decent, safe work at a reasonable wage and, when one's working life ends, to have a livable retirement with dignity. This does not mean luxury, but a basic level of comfort that can support our ability to, say, participate in common political activity like writing for Crosscut, joining organizations, being active in our community. There is no prima facie need, as I see it, to accept the high risk volatility of the private sector as our default mode of employment; that's simply a form of exploitation.

My reaction to this piece - and I'm an independent who's sided with Democrats much more since the neocons started taking hold in the Republican party in the 1990s - is that this felt laced with the sarcasm of a sore loser. Instead, like it or not, voters directed government to get by on what they have, much as they've been forced to do, and this is what government should do. It would be disingenuous for legislators to do anything else, which often includes shifting money from one place to their preferred place(s) to cushion the blow to the latter, unless it can be proven that the "somewhere else" is seen as universally worthy. What shifting money often does, however, is give those wanting only cuts an "I told you so." Here's what I'd have out there: everything! First, a special session ASAP, as the sooner the cuts are implemented, the better. Second, probe the state employee unions to see if they'd be willing to freeze salaries: not just COLAs (including canceling the small one slated for 2011), but also the automatic 5% across-the-board "step" or "longevity" increases that have no relationship to performance and which far exceed inflation. If they say no, they and we should know the difference in terms of the number of jobs. This should also include privatizing where practical. Third, de-fund any initiatives that require funds to implement. Fourth, brainstorm and look big. In higher ed, combining nearby community colleges: choice (a) lock, stock, and barrel; (b) all duplicative programs combined into locating at one college or university; (c) shutting down summer quarter 2011 and/or evening programs; (d) tuition increases. The schools' administrations would have to figure out many of these (and are in the best position to do so). The judicial arena might include expediting lesser charges; holding the prosecuting body liable for attorney's fees if they lose would keep mostly cases with merit going forward vs. tying up the courts' time with proceedings. Fifth, what, if any, fees can get two-thirds of the Legislature's votes? Most likely, nothing, but possibly something tied to "use." The author suggests that doubling fees is simple. It wasn't before, it's nearly impossible now.

One place I agree with the author: drastic action is needed.

Abcs: Drastic action by whom?

The Governor has been forced by the Constitution to make across-the-board cuts and those who don't understand that (and they appear to be in the majority) are yelling at her. She and the Legislature (or at least the returning legislators and the brighter of the new legislators) understand that the whole process is simply impossible, and that the people who will be stunned and disbelieving when the things that benefit them and the people they care about are cut are the same people who voted against more revenue and who believe the GOP mantra of fraud-and-waste. I can't think of a worse job this coming year than being a state legislator or Governor. Or yes, I can: being a service provider who has to say "no money" to those who need help.