You answered your own question, if it ever was a real question in that as a legislative body you will censor yourselves. The fact is you are not starting fresh and the constraints of of the public unions on reform are staggering. The efficient delivery of public services to those who are eligible to recieve them has been out the window decades ago. Mission creep, overlapping services,regulatory expansion, studies, head counts of those supposedly served have all been prioritized over core functions of government.

So… For your readers who have not been Pavlovianly conditioned to shut off their critical thinking skills when they hear the word “Environment”… And for those readers who are concerned about our state’s impending $3 Billion budget deficit…

In 2008 Federal, State and Local governments spent over $2 Billion on Puget Sound restoration activities. The private sector spent another $1.5 Billion, mainly on coerced mitigation. So, for one year, we spent $3.5 Billion on Puget Sound restoration.

Local governments (those closing parks, laying off police officers and neglecting infrastructure) spent over $1.1 Billion.

The State (which – likewise – is closing parks, under-funding education and threatening to turn more Maurice Clemmons’ out of prison) spent $443 Million.

And while some of this money found its way to on-the-ground activities that yielded actual results, much of it was sucked up by a growing bureaucracy that does little more than talk, study, meet and request more money.

Gregoire is forcing consumers to pay a hidden expense and thus more sales tax, perhaps the press hasn't noticed but have you Rep Carlyle?

You want systems change? Consider your own decisions, and whether they actually were for the better or worse. For example:

By increasing the ethanol mandate to the fuel supply, consumers must now buy more gallons to travel the same distance. Ethanol has less energy than regular gasoline, and thus reduces the miles per gallon. That is an undisputable fact. That represents more sales tax income.

Second, ethanol accelerates the deterioration of open cycle gasoline engines (off road vehicles, power tools, chain saws, boat motors, generators, etc.). Don't believe me? Read the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute's report www.opei.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1926. Or how about the Boat Owners Association of the US http://www.boatus.com/PressRoom/release.asp?id=457

And third, the WA State Department of Ecology personally told me last year that any more than 2% ethanol in the fuel supply meant Seattle would not meet EPA ozone attainment levels. Is that the systems change you sought? Do you know why the phrase "from wonder fuel to blunder fuel" is becoming more popular?

If you think Gregoire is smart, they you have to assume she knows that sales tax revenue will increase as consumers struggle to replace failed equipment. Of course, that reduces the savings of consumers, but why should she care, she'll be out of office in 3 years.

What about the costs of safety? Chainsaw kickback, stalled boat motors, emergency generators that won't start, inefficient operations, fuel that must be drained and dispose of, and prematurely damaged equipment that must be discarded into the landfill, are all part of the systems failure the Legislature has imposed. And now you want to increase the percentage?

Reuven, you're absolutely right about systems change. Thanks for picking out a few prime contenders for reform (all called out in past years by D's as needing reform). Licensing, liquor, transportation funding have all been protected by the team you've signed up with, so best of luck inside your caucus. My advice would be picking ONE area for systems reform and trying to show you're capable of making change within the beast, as very very few legislators have ever proven their change skills are close to their rhetorical abilities. The Gov has appointed Jay Manning, one of the nicest people on earth but a fully made man in the Washington environmental community, who has no interest in reducing the size and scope or operating procedures of state government. He did nothing at DOE to create new ways of doing business and now he's running the "remake gov't" program? He's philosophically hostile to the idea. He, together with so many of your legislative colleagues, are paid apparatchiks of the status quo and various interest groups, and are aligned against "system reform".

The only way to succeed is to become world's expert in one of these areas so as to be able to overcome the pushback from the accumulated influence of interested players (special interests). You had a nice first session, and have a way with rhetoric. I agree with your declaration that reform is needed. Let us know what specific systems change is needed and then show us you can make it happen. Saying you won't vote for a budget without XYZ is fundamentally grandstanding, which does not make friends or influence people. Do the work.

In the past I have been supportive of gasoline taxes, and so I am curious what the other options are that you propose.

I like your approach. I have come to the conclusion that in order to gain public support for more revenue, there has to be clear evidence that the state government is moving away from a "business as usual" attitude. I'd also be interested to see which R's you can work with on these issues, since the press eats up these "strange bedfellows" issues.