Advice to budget writers: Cut the sustainability rhetoric
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have created a budget that would start Washington state on an even footing for the next two years.
As legislators begin another special session to grapple with budget issues, they need to start by leveling with themselves and their constituents. If budget “sustainability” means that the costs of essential programs and services are balanced by sufficient revenues at least through the next biennium, none of the budgets under consideration are sustainable.
Senate Republicans passed a supplemental operating budget with the help of “Roadkill” Democrats that delays $133 million needed to fund the closure of old state employee and teacher pension plans and cuts another $75 million from K-12 and higher education. Senate and House Democrats have adopted budgets that postpone $330 million in state support for K-12 schools until July 2013 and into the next budget cycle.
But more significantly, all operating budgets under consideration avoid the reality that they depend on revenue from a temporary B & O tax surcharge on several service industries that was adopted in 2010. The surcharge, used to reduce cuts to K-12 and higher education, is scheduled to sunset at the end of this biennium. Unless re-enacted, and that would require under current rules a two-thirds majority vote in both houses, budget writers will start the next fiscal cycle with an estimated $527 million less to work with.
Also, the transportation funding can was kicked down the road. Gov. Chris Gregoire’s task force recommended a $21 billion, 20-year package that included funding for a large backlog of roadway maintenance and pavement replacement projects and increased ferry service. Since the Legislature was unable to agree on new revenue sources to replace the state’s declining gas tax revenues, the supplemental transportation budget maintained spending at current levels. Again, fiscal reality postponed.
And then there is the looming issue of "amply" funding basic education. The state Supreme Court has given legislators until 2018 to define basic education, design funding formulas, and find a substantial amount of new revenue in the form of "dependable and regular tax sources." The court is clearly holding the legislature responsible for selecting one or more taxes that are sufficient to fund a larger K-12 budget that will not be subject to the uncertainty witnessed in the last session, which saw a patchwork of cuts, budgeting gimmicks, and proposals for short-term revenue "buybacks" that could be submitted to voters.
The bill for full funding of basic education will be substantial. In addition to the instructional program for basic education, it’s likely to include the costs of reduced class sizes, all-day kindergarten, replacement of local maintenance and operation levies, expanded student transportation, and increased MSOCs (materials, supplies, and operating costs).
How much new revenue? No exact fiscal estimate can be made until the definition of basic education is established and funding allocations are agreed to. But media reports quoting unnamed “education finance experts” put it in the $4 to 9 billion range.
Whatever the final amount, the financial impact on state taxpayers would be lessened if new revenues to cover these costs were phased-in over the next three biennia, and not postponed to 2018.
Lawmakers are clearly hoping for better times. They are betting on an economic recovery that will generate more tax revenue, reducing the need to ask constituents to approve new tax sources.
Sustainable budgeting might be achievable — more than rhetoric — if there were no uncertainty in the fiscal arena. Or if the state’s economy and revenues always improve and the risk is only upside. But the state’s Economic and Revenue Forecasting Council predicts both upside and downside risks.
In its most recent Economic & Revenue Outlook (March 8), ERFC concluded: “The level of uncertainty in the baseline remains extremely high, and downside risks outweigh upside risks.” Much of this uncertainty is outside of our legislators’ control, and depends on what happens in Washington, D.C., and the Euro-zone.
All of this makes "sustainable budgeting" an elusive goal.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 12:22 p.m. Inappropriate
There are certainly a number of things that COULD be done in the short term to impact long term sustainability. The problem for the Majority Party and the author of this article is that the core support base of the Democrats would be alienated by any positive actions.
They can start with looking at the total amount of resources that is being spent on supporting the State's "Sanctuary" Policy for illegal aliens. With almost 250,000 illegal aliens in the State and growing at double digits each year. it's not hard to see that the State needs to end Sanctuary, start requiring E-verify for all employment in the State, stop issuing Drivers Licenses, certifications, food handlers permits, ect. to anyone without proof of citizenship and a right to work in the State. Next, positive identification and proof of citizenship and income verification for any support services from the Social safety net in the State. Illegal aliens will start to self-deport and we will see tens of thousands of illegal aliens and children of illegal aliens leave our school systems and relieve the pressures being felt there. It will also greatly reduce costs of law enforcement, DOC and legal aid. More resources will be avaialble to those who are legitimately entitiled to it within the social safety net system. Savings? Close to a billion a year.
A regime change in Olympia might actually allow for union contract negotiations where the taxpayers of the State have an advocate sitting at the table instead of a union paid shill.
Since the State has bargined away any revenue stream from the tribes and tribal gaming and in fact are rebating what little taxes they do pay, it's time to open up limited non-tribal gaming. Issue licenses for the same number of casinos as the Tribes currently have. Give those Casinos the options the tribes have with electronic gaming and smoking policies exemptions. Let the highest qualified bidders located in markets where the jurisdictions actually want them and they are properly zoned for impacts. Tax them, but not in the traditional "Washington Sin Tax Way" that makes them non-competitive from the start.
The legislature could make modifications to the 1183 to make it a more open market and lower the tax rates, which will lead to more revenue coming into the State as it makes alternatives less attractive. They could pass the Cigar Lounge legislation and lower the taxes on cigarettes as well.
Those are few to get started, we can hit on State Sales Taxes on Public infrastructure projects, prevailing wage rates, unfunded mandates from the State to the Cities, reorganization and cutting programs and others later.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 12:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Cameron, if you keep up that unorthodox thinkin', you're gonna join the three Senators who crossed the aisle - and their leadership - last week in needing the witness protection program.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 12:34 p.m. Inappropriate
Let the public servant, already brutalized Indian and poor people pay for it. Sounds like a Republican doesn't it? You're so overtaxed, Cameron, that you don't care who you take it from. And cigarettes over people What a sad reality.
We could raise the sales tax a penny and a half - wasn't that what Gregoire wanted? True, it is regressive and poor people would pay it but it is probably as good as Cameron's idea which increases government bureaucracy to get all those "gotchas" going against everybody else started and maintained. Yep. Let's screw public servants while we're increasing government "gotcha" people.
You're very sensible, Cameron. Yes, indeedy.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 5:05 p.m. Inappropriate
Well, Dick, we agree that there is not yet a sustainable budget on the table. And, for all of the reasons you outline here, one is unlikely to appear anytime soon. I am as disappointed in the Senate Republican budget as I am in the House Democratic budget ... but the problem is not with the authors, it's largely with the oppositional culture in hich they are working.
My concern since January 2009 has been that the institution of the Legislature (and, indeed, the Governor) can't seem to grapple with the budget in anything other than balance-it-now-and-leave-town sort of way. Hoping for better times does not make it so ... and leaving hard questions to be taken up after the next election has brought us to this ugly place. We've done real damage to state institutions and services in the past four years ... largely because we can't work together and find some compromise among the major players on the big issues of the day.
Actions that require a six-year forecast, adjusting the dates for the purchase of state employee health care to better coincide with contract dates, consolidating education employees' health care, other little fiscal fixes will not deliver a sustainable budget in the near or mid-term. These actions have been championed by many of us in a hope that it would start people thinking in different terms about the state budget.
You might note, by the way, that stakeholders in the education health care status quo, WEA and Premera, have come together to send out so much disinformation about the health care consolidation, it just boggles the mind. Follow the money, anyone?
I appreciate your perspective; as a retired legislator, you know how it works.
Deb Eddy
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 5:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Good post, Cameron.
It's not surprising there are defenders of the status quo cartel.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 6:15 p.m. Inappropriate
No where in your response Northender did I see anything being done to anyone that isn't already already being done by the current adminstration.
This is a group that is preoccupied with taking Marijuana (in it's smokable form) from a schedule 1 to a schedule 2 drug and selling it through pharmacies. Isn't that encouraging smoking? My point about Sin Taxes is that when they reach the level that the State of Washington imposes, it opens the door to alternative channels.
We have tried it "Your Way" for almost three decades and here we sit. Giving individuals an option to visit non-tribal taxable casinos only makes sense, even to cash starved legislators.
Stopping the funding and support of illegal aliens in our State makes sense as well. It's too bad it didn't recieve as much attention as "Other" Issues this session.
If you want to raise the Sales Tax half a penny, go ahead and run with that. The reason tax increases have failed as of late is that voters do not feel the people currently in charge of the Legislature and the budget process are delivering value for their money. They see the graft, the cronyism, the campaign contributions for "consideration" by the very unions the Governor and legislature are tasked with negotiating contracts with.
It's time for a change, four more years of the same simply shouldn't be tolerated any more.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 8:30 p.m. Inappropriate
WA Department of Transportation estimates the gas tax deal Christine Gregoire cut with her sovereign tribal campaign contributors will cost Washington State taxpayers $621 Million over the next 17 years.
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/tribes-undercut-non-tribal-fuel-stations-gas-tax-subsidy
During his last campaign, Jay Inslee took campaign money from tribes as far away as Connecticut and Mississippi.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 8:48 p.m. Inappropriate
No where in your response Cameron do I see anything relevant to what I said.
This is a group that is preoccupied with taking Marijuana (in it's smokable form) from a schedule 1 to a schedule 2 drug and selling it through pharmacies. Isn't that encouraging smoking?
That makes about as much sense as legalizing beer encourages drinking. "Drinking" in the general imbibing-of-all-liquids sense or specifically beer.
"My way" worked well until "your way" - the Reagan"-"Bush"-"Clinton"-"Bush" way decided to favor the wealthy. Can't imagine why, can you? Providing federal money to states was the right thing to do. But you and yours - Mr. Eyeman anyone? - turned this state into a community of greedy short-sighted Mississippi-style voters and politicians. My way is the socially-liberal Rosellini way. My way is the socially-liberal Evans way. My way is the socially-liberal Spellman way. My way is the socially-liberal people-come-before-greedy-venture-capitalist-wall-street-hedge-fund way.
Thirty years? You got that right. Reagan. Your idol who started it all with the air traffic controllers.
Our difference is one of values: you throw out the poor with the right to be here rather than tolerate those without the right to be here. And you want to increase government to make it happen.
Make up your mind.
Tax cuts fail because people have been propagandized to think "government is the problem.' That came from one of yours thirty years ago, too. Don't credit this mess with us. We didn't start it. And the only fix is more revenue and you and cranky-old-lady sitting at home with her husband's pension under pillow will continue to advocate for the abandonment of the poorest among us, the children who comprise the population moving into poverty the fastest; and the middle class who is moving into poverty as I post this comment.
If you can stop pinching every penny that you think goes to someone who doesn't deserve it, eventually someone may decide you don't deserve it either. That would be a satisfying day for me if only I were there to see it.
BTW people are unions. You talk about them as if they are isolated monoliths made of some alien philosophy. I am union and I am a thinking and feeling person who knows what it was that made this country great until enough people got just rich enough they didn't want to share anymore. That's who you are, Cameron. Think about it.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 9:06 p.m. Inappropriate
And blue light: always after the tribes, huh? Too bad she didn't send to the legislature a bill transferring all property rights back to the injuns for the land we stole. Oh, but that's small potatoes now. Reservations are good enough. Oh wait . . . they got a good deal on some transportation issue? Really? Can't have that. Let's go screw 'em some more. Oh they've found a way to profit, these tribes? Well, we damn sure can't have that now can we? (imagine southern drawl) What else can we screw injuns out of? Anythin' to keep them from taking more of our money in taxes. We just can't be havin' that darlin'. I need every little feather in my little silk pillow.
And imagine Jay Inslee taking money from Indian Tribes. Good gosh almighty, sounds like Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Robert Reed and all those other righteous Republicans. Blue Light, you never do say anything intelligent.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 9:10 p.m. Inappropriate
If corrupting our public officials and governance is the way they "found" to profit, then no, northender, we damn sure can't have that.
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 9:17 p.m. Inappropriate
And your proof that they "corrupted" our public officials? Or is your proof the kind that Breitbart put out? BTW, are you saying if it wasn't for those "corrupting" injuns, the public officials would be honest? Are you really saying that?
Posted Sun, Mar 11, 9:52 p.m. Inappropriate
The only just and equitable answer is raising revenue through taxes. Anyone with integrity would say, "just do it."
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 5:45 a.m. Inappropriate
"Tax cuts fail because people have been propagandized to think "government is the problem.' That came from one of yours thirty years ago, too. Don't credit this mess with us."
You will continue to denie the problems with the current Governor and Democrat majority in the Legislature right into minority status. Keep it up. "Don't credit this mess with us." Really? It has nothing to do with your party and their performance after three decades of one party rule?
Your party couldn't even bring itself to sunset tax exemptions under the Carlyle Bill until 2017. How is that the Republicans fault again?
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 5:52 a.m. Inappropriate
Northender,
Funny you mention Jack Abramoff and Jay Inslee, Hypocritical, but funny.
National Democrat Party Affiliated Committees Received Over $1.2 Million From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)
•The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Received Over – $430,000
•The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Received Over – $629,000
•The Democrat National Committee (DNC) Received Over – $177,000
Incumbent Senate Democrat-Affiliated Campaign And Leadership Committees Received Over $729,000 From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff*. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)
40 Of The 45 Members Of The Senate Democrat Caucus:
•Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
•Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
•Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
•Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
•Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
•Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
•Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
•Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
•Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
•Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
•Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
•Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
•Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
•Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
•Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
•Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
•Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
•Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
•Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
•Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
•Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
•Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
•Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
•Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
•Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
•Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
•Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
•Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
•Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
•Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
•Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
•Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
•Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
•Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
•Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
•Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
•Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
•Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
•Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
•Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 6:02 a.m. Inappropriate
That was the Senate, Inslee is on this list, but then I assume you knew he took money from Abramoff.
Abramoff Lobbying & Political Contributions to Democrats,
per FEC Records
# # # # #
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700
Democratic National Cmte $65,720
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500
Democratic Party of Michigan $23,000
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500
Democratic Party of Oklahoma $15,000
Chris John (D-La) $15,000
John Breaux (D-La) $13,750
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000
Democratic Party of North Dakota $10,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000
Democratic Party of South Dakota $9,500
Democratic Party of Minnesota $9,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500
Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000
Dick Durbin (D-Ill) $8,000
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523
Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250
Democratic Party of New Mexico $6,250
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000
David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000
Democratic Party of Montana $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500
Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000
Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000
George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000
Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000
David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000
Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500
Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000
Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000
Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000
Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500
John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $1,000
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000
Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000
Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Democratic Party of Washington $500
Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500
Grand Total $1,541,673
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 7:41 a.m. Inappropriate
During his last campaign, Jay Inslee too money from"
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Palm Springs CA
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians; Roseburg, OR
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe; Sequim, WA
Lummi Nation; Bellingham, WA
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe; Mashantucket, CT
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Philadelphia, MS
Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Cabazon, CA
NIGA Sovereignty PAC; Washington D.C.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 7:50 a.m. Inappropriate
oops! hit submit, too soon! He also took money from:
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians; Temecula, CA
Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Atmore, AL
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Kingston, WA
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Mt. Pleasant, MI
Salt River Pima Maricopa Tribe; Scottsdale, AZ
San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians; Highland, CA
Spokane Tribe; Wellpinit, WA
Suquamish Indian Tribe; Suquamish, WA
Swinomish Tribe; LaConner, WA
Tulalip Tribe; Marysville, WA
Upper Skagit Tribe; Sedro Wooley, WA
What are "sovereign" Alabama indians doing giving Washinton's representative money? Hmmm... Jay did help grant "members of indian tribes" a waiver from Obamacare's personal mandate (buy insurance or pay a fine!)... I wonder what else their money's bought.
If you like being saddled so that others can ride: Vote Jay Inslee for Governor.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 8:48 a.m. Inappropriate
Rep. Eddy: Yes, let's follow the money indeed. You acknowledge that "consolidating education employees' health care, other little fiscal fixes will not deliver a sustainable budget in the near or mid-term." The fiscal note for that so-called "reform" of K-12 insurance shows it will cost $45 million over the next three budget cycles and add 38 employees to the state Health Care Authority. At a time when the budget is being CUT by hundreds of millions of dollars, why would you do such a thing?
Yes, follow the money. How about that $850 a month from taxpayers that you get for health care benefits, Rep. Eddy, for working less than half time? Compare that to K-12 employees who work more than you, half time, who get $384 a month. So why are you attacking teachers' benefits?
Savings? That's not what the fiscal note says. That's not even what the auditor's report said, when you actually read it, what with all the costs it ignored because they were "beyond the scope" -- costs such as $275 million for a reserve fund.
You have the gall to chastise others for "disinformation"? Read your own post. Listen to the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of the supposed "reformers". Why are you not looking at your own health care benefits if you want to start saving? Even the Health Care Authority admits (this is an exact quote) that "no aggregate 'savings' are projected...rather costs are shifted" in this so-called reform (see HCA report, Vol. 3, page 6). That's right, shifted onto local school districts -- but what do you care if local levies (and property taxes) need to go up to cover the costs? As long as you create the illusion that you are "reforming".
No, Rep. Eddy, the disinformation is coming from those with a so-called "reform" agenda who are not willing to look at their own benefits, but have the gall to talk about "equity" and "transparency."
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 3:20 p.m. Inappropriate
My benefits have nothing to do with this situation, Arthur, although the WEA has spent a lot of time and money trying to make it about legislative benefits. The legislature is covered by the PEBB; what we've been trying to promote is an identical vehicle for education employees, dubbed the SEBB.
Smarter people than me have read the reports, weighed the pros and cons ... and besides a long-term savings to the state, the consolidation would bring EQUITY AND BETTER BENEFITS to the insurance provided to all education employees. What a consolidated pool will not do is return money to the association or to the insurance brokers. They aren't pouring all this money into an "anti" campaign because they care about you. :-)
I'm not going to debate the issues with you here, Arthur. Would take up too much space, and I'm pretty sure that your mind is pretty well made up. Best wishes to you, in any event.
Rep. Deb Eddy
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 8:42 p.m. Inappropriate
You will continue to denie(sic) the problems with the current Governor and Democrat majority in the Legislature right into minority status." Bla bla bla. I addressed that in a much wider context that you seem to comprehend. Enough said.
"Tax cuts fail..." should have said "tax increases fail..." Of course, if you were comprehending the response to your own comment, you would have caught that. Yes, our values are different and you want to hang on to your pennies. I get that.
As for all your lists, who cares. There's one for each side. What does that prove? Next time, link your source. Afraid of what I might find on the other side . . .
You don't get it over and over and over. You're going to cheer for your team regardless of its demerits and faults. That is the problem with the right. I countered with reasons why our state and all states are suffering. But you can't see it, can you? It's my side is right and your side is wrong. Well, my side is for kids and people and your side is for money.
That's the second time I've said that and you haven't proved me wrong.
I wish Deb Eddy would explain how this healthcare bill gives me better healthcare. I'm a teacher in Seattle. I've seen the State retirement systems become worse over the years until it appears no one may have a retirement one of these days. Why should I trust you on healthcare?
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 8:42 p.m. Inappropriate
sorry for the italics!
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 9:22 p.m. Inappropriate
Could we please get some oversight of comments so these long streams of names and the continual harping on tribes and non-profits don't drive people away?
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 11:57 p.m. Inappropriate
Dick Nelson decries postponing dealing with a sustainable budget. Rep. Eddy speaks of the "oppositional forces" at work in the legislature. All of the voters speak of wanting to see leadership from our elected officials.
As I see the situation though, the lack of leadership is not because of a lack of will to take effective action on the budget in our elected leaders. It is a problem that the voters and business leaders fail to take effective leadership themselves.
In particular, we look for the legislature to draft bipartisan legislation but our community business leaders--the Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, Russell Investments, Safeco, Nordstroms--are not willing to step up and say loudly and clearly that funding higher education is key to maintaining a productive and globally-competitive workforce. These companies don't step up to say that a health care system that continues to have spiral costs is a detriment to competitiveness and is a key reason for the on-going business-labor conflicts in the state. These companies don't step up to say that the B&O; tax is a burden to innovation and the start-ups which drives long-term global competitiveness.
We all know that Washington state's tax system just does not work in the modern global economy. We all know that we aren't funding basic education and higher education to the level that is required to keep up with our competitors. We all know that the top wage earners in the state are not contributing to state revenue in the same manner that they have for previous decades.
But our business leaders are more than willing to either sit on the sidelines because the tax system benefits them or to fight needed reforms which would even the tax burden in the state and even out the rises and dips in revenue.
There used to be a group of moderate Republican business leaders in this community that were engaged and made sure government worked. Today it seems that we have ideologues in the legislature that are more interested in principles than practice. They'd just as soon be happy that nothing happened at all and gridlock continued indefinitely. The Eyman initiatives work in their favor in that regard.
So to Nelson and Ebby, I suggest that they start looking at the issue in a different way. We need our business leaders to step up and give the politicians the political cover to fundamentally reform the tax structure and we need our business leaders to stop the short term profit-and-loss thinking and think more about what is in the best interest of their employees in this state and the community that they operate in.
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 7:21 a.m. Inappropriate
Sarah90, Are those lists inaccurate? Did they not refute Northenders statement? Or do you simply oppose anything that doesn't reinforce a particular set of preconceived political beliefs. It's hard to have a discussion in an echo chamber.
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 7:35 a.m. Inappropriate
Pythagoras makes an excellent case that the state's leading businesses need to help lead an effort to restructure the state's tax system for the benefit of all. This has been an ongoing theme in previous articles, as it will be in future articles, by this author. See for example: http://crosscut.com/2012/01/04/social-services/21750/Unkindest-cuts-in-Olympia:-Kate-s-story/
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 7:40 a.m. Inappropriate
Sarah, Crosscut has a headline for you:
Head in the Sand: Beckett Play Warns Against Blissful Ignorance
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 8:18 a.m. Inappropriate
I agree with Pythagoras. For several years, I've looked for some conversation among the state's largest businesses and most thoughtful civic activists on the need for a state-wide agenda for the 21st Century. Alas, that conversation occurs only in small groups, centered on one or another need ... like education or transportation infrastructure, without (as Dick noted above) a recognition of the need to overhaul the tax system, if we're going to actually do any of this stuff.
The Gates/Spitzer commission did a fine job in 2002 ... but with the exception of that ill-fated effort to institute an income tax a couple of years ago (opportunity missed!) ... nothing substantive has come from that work.
Rep. Deb Eddy
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 11:35 a.m. Inappropriate
Gates/Spitzer Commission...beginning with the end in mind.
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 4:03 p.m. Inappropriate
Rep. Eddy: Thanks for the classic example of doublespeak and avoidance. You say "what we've been trying to promote is an identical vehicle for education employees," which is a joke, because it is without the same level of funding.
You don't want your benefits to be part of the issue because when the comparison is made, it is clear that you and all legislators get FAR MORE in health benefits than you are willing to provide for K-12 employees, who by the way are not asking for more, they are simply asking that you don't throw them into a state system under the guise of "saving money" when the fiscal note on your legislation shows THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.
IT WILL NOT SAVE MONEY -- in fact it will COST $45 million over the next three budget cycles. And it will add 38 employees to the Health Care Authority. And the state can afford this NOW, while millions of dollars are cut out of other programs? Is it any wonder the state has budget problems with that kind of thinking and "leadership"?
Of course you are "not going to debate the issues here" because you have no factual ground to stand on. If you truly want EQUITY, where is your proposal to bump K-12 employee benefits up to the same level as yours, and all the thousands of state employees who work half time (or like you, working less than half time) who get $850 a month for health care, while a comparable K-12 employee gets $384/month?
But the state can't afford that. Nor can the state, apparently, afford to fully fund basic education, and thus is slapped again and again by the courts, only to have legislators turn around and ignore that issue once again, but instead propose bureaucracy-bloating "reform" such as what you are championing.
Just give me one example, Rep. Eddy -- ONE -- of a program that state government has taken over from local government that costs less and runs more efficiently. There is none. Yet we are supposed to take on faith that this will be the exception. Sorry, Rep. Eddy, but YOUR health benefits ARE part of the issue. And the fact that you cannot see the hypocrisy in your position is, frankly, both telling and sad.
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 9:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks, Arthur. I was hoping that she would at least make an attempt to explain the benefits of change. I'm curious and interested and who better to do it that her. It would not be arguing anything but elucidating for me and others who are probably her constituents. I'm generally on your side, Deborah, but I have to understand it.
I have one area where savings could occur at the state level: actuaries. Why pay actuaries a grand salary when it is much cheaper to electronically send those reports and data to India for crunching?
Since most of the intelligent people here ignore Cameron and Blue Light, I will as well.
Posted Wed, Mar 14, 6:35 a.m. Inappropriate
It's strange that "Arthurking" asks Deb Eddy a question, she reponds and Northender calls her out for not answering his question for a second time.
"That's the second time I've said that and you haven't proved me wrong.
I wish Deb Eddy would explain how this healthcare bill gives me better healthcare. I'm a teacher in Seattle. I've seen the State retirement systems become worse over the years until it appears no one may have a retirement one of these days. Why should I trust you on healthcare?
— northender"
Split personality?
Posted Thu, Mar 15, 9:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Cameron: She did NOT answer any of the questions posed to her. She refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy in calling for "equity" when she gets $850/moth for health care working (at best) half time, and K-12 employees working half time get $384/month, yet she is supporting so-called "reform" of the K-12 system that would impose more costs on employees, more costs on school districts, more costs on taxpayers, but not raise that $384 one penny.
Again, K-12 employees are not asking for a higher state contribution -- that would be nice, but the state can't afford it -- they are simply asking to not pass legislation that would throw them into the morass of state government under the guise of "saving money" when the independent fiscal note for that legislation shows it will COST $45 million over the next 3 budget cycles, and ADD 38 new employees to state government. Rep. Eddy refuses to acknowledge and address that fiscal note.
Nor does Rep. Eddy answer the key question -- when has this EVER worked? Why can't she name even one program that costs less and is more efficient because state government runs it? She doesn't address the question because she can't name one. So why, the fiscal note and all evidence to the contrary, should people take it on faith that this so-called "reform" will be the first, ever, state program that runs more efficiently?
And finally, she does not answer the question, why NOW? When she and her colleagues are cutting state programs to balance the budget, why impose a program that ADDS $45 million in costs, ADDS 38 state employees, SHIFTS more costs onto local school districts (which is all documented)?
While it's true that Rep. Eddy "responds", she is doing so in the timeworn political tradition -- don't answer the question, say what you want to say, even if there is no factual basis for it, and if you do so often enough, maybe people will believe it eventually, give up asking and/or just go away. It is no wonder government and politicians in particular are held in such low regard -- they earn it.
Posted Thu, Mar 15, 9:53 p.m. Inappropriate
She was one yours, enjoy.
Posted Mon, Mar 19, 10:44 p.m. Inappropriate
Northender, I'll bet you work for a nonprofit.
Posted Mon, Mar 19, 10:59 p.m. Inappropriate
Oops, sorry, I see you say you are union. Interesting. I have no problem with unions that help workers keep an even keel with wages and benefits, and who negotiate in good faith.
However, I also feel nonprofits and many unions, especially the WEA, are unrealistic about their needs and expectations.
Of course I also feel that way about the State electeds too.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.