Plunging revenues mean a coming tax vote
Washington’s budget situation just got a whole lot worse. The state’s $6 billion deficit has now ballooned to around $8 billion. That means it’s all but certain majority Democrats in the Legislature will put a tax measure on the ballot sometime later this year.
Chief revenue forecaster Arun Raha gave lawmakers the bad news Thursday afternoon. Basically Raha was giving lawmakers a “sneak peak” at the official revenue forecast which is due out March 19th. Raha explained that after he delivered his November forecast, dire as that was, Washington’s economy “hit the wall.” As a result, he predicts Washington will lose another $2.3 billion in anticipated tax revenues for the coming two-year budget period, through 2011.
Raha managed a laughing-through-the tears moment when he attempted to balance the dire economic situation with the good news that Ken Griffey Jr. is returning to the Mariners. “Everything we feared could go wrong did,” said Raha about the state's economy. “That doesn’t mean that always has to be the case. Sometimes we get unexpected good surprises. Did I mention Ken Griffey Jr. is coming back?”
So how will majority Democrats and Gov. Chris Gregoire (who firmly pledged not to raise taxes during her reelection campaign) close this gaping budget hole? Here’s one scenario based on some rough math coupled with semi-informed guesswork. First, the state expects to reel in about $1.7-2 billion in Medicaid funds from the federal stimulus bill just passed. That knocks the problem back down to $6 billion. From there it seems reasonable to expect Democrats will find $3-4 billion in cuts, one-time savings, and assorted budget gimmicks (including tapping the rainy day fund). After all that dust settles, it leaves a $1-2 billion hole.
This is where the real pain — if you’re a Democrat — comes. These are the cuts that Democrats will likely ask voters to “buy back” in the form of a tax increase to fund some of the more popular, unthinkable-to-cut programs. What will that tax increase look like? Sales tax, B&O tax, a green tax to discourage wasteful energy consumption, even a new tax? What programs will be earmarked for elimination-or-rescue? Education, social services, assistance to the most needy? Finally, when will the tax measure be on the ballot — April, May, November? All these questions are yet to be answered.
A wildcard in all of this is several key Democrats have said they want to leave around $1 billion in the bank when they go home in late April. That cushion would be in case the economy deteriorates even more before lawmakers reconvene in January 2010. It's tricky to make the case for a tax increase when you’re leaving $1 billion in the bank.
So where are minority Republicans in all of this? They think Democrats aren’t moving fast enough to cut spending now, in the current budget. And they recoil at any mention of the T-word. Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama, sums it up this way: “As far as the talk that we’re starting to hear about tax increases, I just don’t think we should be throwing in the towel and asking the taxpayers for the bailout.” The Democrats may have to swallow the bitter tax medicine all by themselves.













Comments:
Posted Fri, Feb 20, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate
Helpful piece. I agree with Austin's big-picture math assumptions, and his previously reported word that taxes are on the table. Tough times. The last major recessions, in the early '80s and the early '90s, resulted in the party-in-power raising taxes and losing their majorities pronto. Will the result be the same this time, or will folks blame the economy, not the policymakers?
Posted Fri, Feb 20, 9:35 a.m. inappropriate
It would be worth a tax increase to get the current crop of Bozos out of Olympia. I'd pay good money for that. Otherwise, I'm not interested in being co-dependent to a bunch of power mad, money wasting, socialist idiots.
Posted Fri, Feb 20, 1:53 p.m. inappropriate
Tapping the rainy day fund during the current economic crisis is not a gimmick. The whole point of creating such a fund is to build reserves during good times so they are available for use during a serious economic downturn, thus flattening year-to-year public sector spending through the ups and downs of the economic cycle and providing greater stability to the provision of government programs over the long run. If the current severe economic downturn -- one that could easily turn into a full-scale collapse from which it would take years to recover -- is not sufficient justification for drawing down the fund, then what would be? In other words, using the rainy day fund now is the furthest thing from a gimmick -- it's sound fiscal policy. Too bad the fund is not bigger, since we could certainly use the extra spending to help prop up the economy as the private sector undergoes a major contraction.
Austin is not acknowledging one other possibility for making up at least a portion of the current $8 billion gap: deficit spending. Since John Maynard Keynes first articulated the idea in the 1930s, the value of deliberate public sector deficit spending as a powerfully stimulative instrument of fiscal policy has been an accepted part of mainstream economic thinking in the post-Great Depression, post-WWII era. That Keynesian approach is what the federal stimulus bill is predicated on, and some of the state's most prominent economists have been urging Democratic leaders in Olympia to consider running a deficit over the next biennium. Given the severity of the current crisis, it would not surprise me to see at least a few hundred million dollars of the shortfall dealt with via the borrowing route.
Posted Fri, Feb 20, 2:51 p.m. inappropriate
Sandeep is too quick to commit to additional deficit spending. The only reason the rainy day fund is not larger is because of "over spending" by Democrats in the Governors Mansion and the Legislature. We have seen no indication that the current regime will make any significant effort to cut anything in State Government. Treasurer McIntire is happy to run deficits as far as the eye can see to support his social welfare agenda and institute a State Income tax.
The only solution is to remove those who deliberately led the State into it's current financial condition, despite numerous warnings and then lied about it during the recent election.
Posted Fri, Feb 20, 3:18 p.m. inappropriate
The rainy day fund would be a LOT bigger if the size of state government hadn't grown by 30% in the last too sessions. Does anyone recall that we started out the last session with a $2 billion surplus, but the Legislature ended up spending all of that windfall and increasing spending several billion dollars more to boot? The State is awash in money. All the Legislature needs to do is prioritize spending. Start by eliminating all the new programs enacted in the last two sessions. If this is really an emergency, start acting like it.
Posted Fri, Feb 20, 4:04 p.m. inappropriate
To clarify. I didn't mean to suggest tapping the rainy day fund is an example of a gimmick - it fits into the list of "other" ways lawmakers will aim to balance the budget which includes one-time spending and gimmicks. I think both Democrats and Republicans here in Olympia have made it clear a situation like this is what the rainy day fund was made for. The point I was trying to make - and I think it's an important one - is there are a lot of budget tricks and one-time dollars that can be used to help balance the budget. As for deficit spending, the Olympia press corps has repeatedly pressed the Democratic leadership about whether that is under consideration and the answer back has consistently been no - as recently as this week. That said, I do know the Senate Democratic Caucus heard a lecture from a UW professor who was pushing the idea of deficit spending. I would say with an $8B shortfall anything is possible, but what I'm hearing right now is there's not much support for going into debt to balance the operating budget. Stay tuned....
Posted Fri, Feb 20, 6:14 p.m. inappropriate
Plunging revenues is only a small part of the problem. Government costs will still climb unless there is some form of restructuring. And what about retiree's benefits? Pension Plans have gotten hammered, and we've only begun the deleveraging. I have to agree with the general sentiment: we need serious leaders capable of following through with hard tasks. Not leaders willing to coddle people due to weak character.
As to Keynesian economics, it's obsolete. It coincided with the ascendency of the Nation-State--a sociopolitical form on the decline. Globalization marks the decline. Naturally, that story has yet to play itself out.