If it were not for the "Republican Senate going rogue" we would still be in Special Session. While Mr. Bozeman doesn't feel it produced the desired results, that has more to do with the lack of leadership, prioritization skills and a coherent vision for the future from the Governor and the Majority Party.

I dont think we should increas are vision so far down the road it will only lead to longer term's of polititions wich is part of the issue 4 year budget is fine you can still plan as far down the road as you like or should I say the senate will allow you to the big problem with politions is they all ways want more time . more time to figuer out how they can secure there next chance to stay in office I say no fix it now fix the budget today and plan for the future today and dont leave it up to the Governor give her or him somthing to fight throw the ball down thw hallway and see what comes back

In my experience, Governors have the opportunity to lead with a vision for the state for the next several years. Instead of doing sometime outside that process, how about demanding something from them?

(I see signs of visions and plans coming from each campaign right now. So I think starting on something else, today, would be a huge waste.)

The reason this last session went too long: Senate democrats didn't count their votes correctly. Given the enormity of the budget challenge, the special sessions were really trivial problems compared to the pains now being felt throughout the state.

A 10 year strategic plan would not have prevented the drama within the state capitol in 2012. It was the result of a particularly wicked economic time that no one in the state foresaw in 2002.

The state's existing long range plans for higher education and transportation also did not prevent the budget drama this time.

My view: enjoy the spring, summer and fall. Do some homework to prepare to work with the next Governor to build the future.

Long term planning and budgeting for our wonderful state. What a great idea!

Been down this road before many times. The long term "vision thing" does not work so well in a highly politicized environment.

"I cannot imagine successful companies like Boeing and Microsoft not having a long range plan and a projected budget to support that plan, so why should we expect less of our state?"

Something else that's hard to imagine: a multi-billion dollar company being managed through a bicameral 147-member 'board of directors' that needs a 2/3's vote to increase revenue.

The 'run government like a business' meme is lame on so many levels that it's amazing it has as much traction as it does.

In addition to governments having a management structure that is completely unlike anything in the corporate world (democratically elected to represent its constituency), they have a far different mission than "successful companies like Boeing and Microsoft" - to provide services to all 'customers' regardless of their ability to pay.

Governments cannot turn children away from the schoolhouse or refuse to respond to a 911 call; not only can Boeing and Microsoft refuse to provide their products to customers who can't pay for them, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to do exactly that.

"Developing a ten-year strategic plan that lays out the Vision for Washington's Future" is futile when the entity responsible for developing that plan - the Legislature - is reconstituted every two years.

Yes, incumbency is strong in Olympia - but what percentage of the Legislature was there ten years ago? Now compare that to the portion of the Board of Directors at Microsoft or Boeing that have been around for a decade.

I guess Mr Bozeman forgot about his opportunity to create private sector jobs to prevent stormwater pollution in Bellevue that dumps into Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington and chose to get on the same bureaucracy wagon as our wonderful governor, he so dissed.

I clicked on the link to this piece with great anticipation--but I'm disappointed to read a variation of the "can't we all just get along?" plaint.

Mr. Bozeman is certainly right that arriving at a shared, big-picture vision of a desirable future would be wonderful.

The current state of American political di-vision renders such shared aspirations nearly impossible.

The renewed energy with which conservatives engaged on this budget is connected with, and a local expression of, the energetic nation-wide pursuit of conservative goals. This is occurring in all state legislatures and in the congress, and is very unlikely to culminate in a shared vision--about taxation, public finance and spending, same-sex marriage, health care reform, reproductive matters (contraception, abortion, etc.), foreign affairs and projection of military power, and on and on.

While it may be convenient to spin this session's minority maneuvers as "going rogue," you could just as easily focus on the three complicit Democrats, whose walk on the wild side was crucial to the imbroglio.

A call to vision is never out of order. What we really need are plausible strategies and tactics to accomplish that--and I would look forward to another article that ventures into such territory.

I completely agree Olympia is broken and the recent budget deadlock was shameful.
However, I also believe achieving any consensus or common ten year vision by both parties in Olympia is a great academic concept that ignores reality,changing economic conditions and is foolishly naïve. Microsoft and Boeing are not run by a 149 member, part time, partisan board of directors (House+Senate). Microsoft and Boeing are not directed by a CEO that are subject to statewide election. The state and these corporations are wildly different systems.
The problem is our system of governance. It is rooted in the state constitution written in an ancient era dominated by railroads and timber companies. I prefer a unicameral legislature that would pay a real living wage that would expand the potential pool of legislative candidates. The current pool of candidates are largely (not completely) limited to individuals that favor rich, retired military or ranchers plus candidates that are in the pockets and paid for by banking, finance or labor interests.
The only way to do this, given the dysfunctional system in Olympia, is through an initiative. Lets take lying Eymans meal ticket and use it to overhaul, streamline and improve Olympia for our grandkids and their grandkids.

A longer term vision is, in general, a good thing. That said, I think the proposal misses the mark in several important ways.

First, it isn't that simple. Implicit in these sorts of proposals is an belief that if everyone just had a chance to have an honest conversation, they would inevitably all reach the same set of policy choices. In terms of a higher level vision, that might well be correct -- virtually everyone wants to live in a safe and healthy community, with quality education and a vibrant economy.

But, if you take one step down, the agreement isn't as solid as it initially seemed. Different people define a vibrant economy in different ways. Go one step further, and different people advocate very different solutions even if they define the vision in the same way. This is the stuff legislatures struggle with year in and year out. During budget booms and during budget busts. Whether you are in the majority or are in the minority.

Second, elections matter. Using a federal example, does anyone think it would be a good idea to hold President Obama accountable to implement a vision chosen by President Bush? Or for President Bush to implement a vision developed by President Clinton? At the state level (assuming no resignations), voters can pick a different House member every two years. Shouldn't those elections matter?

Third, circumstances change. Any sort of spending and revenue vision that was adopted years ago would need to be seriously revised in light of recent economic developments. In fact, the entire budget debate was about retooling an already agreed upon two-year plan (because the revenue forecast for that plan was revised downward, less than a year later, by almost $2 billion).

Finally I would observe that much of the disagreement this session was about "reforms." Regardless of how one views the various incarnations of those policy proposals (school employee health insurance purchasing, pension benefits, changes to the debt limit, requiring a budget to be balanced out four years, etc.), they were all about the future and none would help balance the budget in the current biennium.

When I read an article like this that says absolutely nothing new, I figure the author has in mind to run for some sort of elected office (again, in Bozeman's case), and is running a draft flag up the flagpole to see if anyone remembers them.